Is the media ignoring John Kerry?

[TayTay]

I don't really think so. I think the snark level in the commentariat is about the same as last year. There are a number of pundits who were mean and condescending and snarky to Kerry in '03 & '04. They still are. Dana Milbank at the WaPo comes to mind. He is one of those people who disdains politicians and he doesn't think much of Mr. Kerry. Same old, same old. (This is the face of the alleged 'liberal media.' They are haughty, believe that they are better than the ones they cover and quick to snark and condescend. It's what people like Milbank do. Screw them.)

Mr. Kerry needs to go on TV more and address issues directly. As Mr. Kerry is a smart and savvy pol, I think he is waiting for a reason. I am not sure what that reason is, but I do have some theories.

I think that Mr. Kerry was trying to do his job as a Massachusetts Senator this year. (Mr. Kerry missed a lot of time in the Senate when he was running for Pres. He needed to re-integrate into life as a Senator.) Mr. Kerry also needed to re-integrate into life as a member of the Democratic leadership in the Congress. (This is a team effort.) The single biggest concern of Senate Dems going into the mid-terms is to make sure that we don't fall below 44 Dems and, if possible, increase that number. Sen. Kerry has done a lot to address this, including lending out his PAC and his e-mail list for fundraising purposes to other Dems.

The Senator has also been heavy on policy this year. He has been filing legislation at a pretty good clip. Kerry was accused (wrongly, I think) of having a thin legislative record last year. That can't be said now and the legislation that has been filed is not gratutitous 'filler.' There has been some really meaty stuff. This is building a solid floor under him. If this is topped off with the only bill in Congress that will actually re-assert Congressional control over the War, then, damn, that is a good record he's building there.

The media is snarky. IT's what they do. However, should Mr. Kerry want to be on the talk shows, I think he would be on the talk shows. (Meet The Press gave him and exclusive hour earlier this year. I think he could easily get one of Joe Biden's Sunday spots, if he wanted it.) I think Sen. Kerry is holding back for some reason. I don't think he wants to be out there, as a talking head, for now. I really don't. I think he is trying to get noticed for deeds right now, not pontificating.

The media does keep grudges, but they also love a redemption story. There is plenty of time for that. I am really intrigued as to why there have been so few appearances by my esteemed Junior Senator this year. (I think he could easily have more appearances, he just has to say yes to the offers. I have trouble believing that he wouldn't be able to get on TV this weekend after being personally dissed by the Prez. I don't think he wants to be there yet. I really don't.)

Why not? What's the upside to this?

[wisteria]

1. While you make some good points, I still feel he is purposely

being ignored. For example, the amendment pertaining to the undisclosed prisons, everywhere I read about this Kerry's name was omitted, this included the AP,MSN and CNN. The speech at Georgetown, I saw it no where other than mentioned in the BG (I think I read about it there) and a very small mention in an AP article in my local paper.I believe there was some mention of CSpan not covering the speech at first also. And the rebuttals he offered to Bush's attacks were not even mentioned in the first articles appearing on MSN online,now they cover it with two sentences while providing a full paragraph to Kennedy and to Reid.(That fine but Kerry deserves as much time also) CNN-360, absolutely no mention at all. And when I turned into the Situation Room I heard no mention what so ever of this portion of Bush's speech nor of John Kerry. Then I log on here and hear that KO said Kerry really isn't relevant or newsworthy any longer.I could go on, but you get the idea. I wasn't around here during the election last year or paying as close attention to what the media reported last year, but I don't doubt this all went on then to.I have a problem with the media playing up John McCain when in fact he isn't anymore important that Kerry is, yet they treat him like something special and Kerry they scorn. I do not refer to MTP or Sunday talk shows when I refer to a media bias, but the other forms of news.
Even if what you say is true, I think there is no harm in contacting various media outlets and expressing our concerns and thoughts.

[_dynamicdems]

5. I agree and it makes me furious, not just

because I support Senator Kerry, but because the implications are positively frightening. There is a larger issue that extends beyond support of an individual politician. They media controls what we hear and therefore, what we believe. This is an insidious means of control. They are true puppet masters, the media. They pull our strings and we dance accordingly. That they are marginalizing Senator Kerry's work hurts and offends me, but the fact that they CAN do it terrifies me.

[jillan]

2. Maybe it is part of his strategy for '08?

Maybe he is trying to keep a low profile, accomplish alot, work on his resume' so to speak? You could be right TayTay.

It's tough. I don't like the little comments coming from the media like Kerry comes out with a new talking point almost daily, but no one pays attention.

AND for me, he makes a heckava lot more sense than alot of the dems that get out there. But I do like Schumer, Durbin, Kennedy on the Sunday shows. Wonder what the line up is for tomorrow?

[ginnyinWI]

16. I was thinking along the same lines as you are

He's staying off TV for the most part, and concentrating on making friends at local levels, with a lot of personal appearances. Why? Well first off, I think he really enjoys direct contact with the people. Second, it's true that he's been burned by TV punditry. Third, he probably feels it's better to be lower profile for now, so he can re-emerge as a fresher face if he should choose to go for it again.

The statements that he puts out regularly via email are for us, his loyal base, to keep us updated and informed. He knows that people like us are going to find him on cspan anyway! :)

[_dynamicdems]

3. Interesting take on this.

You are probably right about John Kerry keeping a low profile as far as the talk shows go. He doesn't want to look like a publicity hound. That would not be a good thing at this point in time. He has also been rather busy. Biden talks. Kerry acts.

What concerns me is not the fact that Senator Kerry isn't the darling of the talk show circuit. That is a position best left to former politicians or hams like Biden.

It is doubtful that John Kerry wants "get on television." He's probably not concerned in the least about whether or not he is on television. He's doing his job. That's his focus right now. When he has something that he wants grassroots action on, Senator Kerry has his mailing list.

However, there is a problem here. There is a concerted effort to ignore everything Senator Kerry works on and everything Senator Kerry talks about. When they can't ignore John Kerry entirely, they marginalize him or his contribution on a particular piece of legislation or regarding a particular issue. Instead of attributing something to Senator Kerry, you will hear the word "democrats" used again and again. Democrats pushed for... Democrats feel... Democrats have stated... It is like they are not allowed to say his name. Think of him as a brand. Well right now he's generic. Brand X. Just don't mention the name.

This isn't about publicity. It is about giving credit where credit is due. The majority of people in this country do not watch C-span. They get their news from network television, cable news and from newspapers. And even C-span ignores much of what Senator Kerry says and does, to our continued frustration.

[wisteria]

4. I agree with you! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

6. I agree with you too!

Can I ask you a dumb question? What is n/t? I see it a lot around here, but I haven't been able to figure it out.

:blush:

[jillan]

8. n/t means no thread..no more comments besides the sig line.

Don't feel dumb, I asked the same question too when I first started hanging out at du.

[jenndar]

7. I think Senator Kerry's huge number

of personal appearances prove your argument about him not wanting to appear on tv, and I'm not that surprised - I find chatty news shows kind of obnoxious, especially when he's on. The questions are always so pat. He's obviously chosen a more effective path for himself and that's great. And you make plenty of great points beyond that :)

But I also think we should be wary of the media - and lots of regular folks as well - who are taking the attitude that, because he ran for president and got a lot of media coverage, he's gotten all he deserves. Effective leadership is not a fifteen-minutes-of-fame kind of issue, and so see, you know, inferior legislation get more lip-service than Senator Kerry's is troubling.

[karynnj]

9. Could he be waiting till before Dec 15 to get on a major talk show

to talk less formally about his Iraq plan. Dec 15 is the Iraq election. W has increased the number of troops for this. Kerry wants the first withdrawal then. He's getting his signatures (and I hope some of the DU purist decide to sign it) and it is the direction the country is going.

It also is way to early to make a comeback. But I wish they at least covered his achievements. The prison bill has his name on it - I really don't understand why the media which says whose bill every other bill is sponsored by. It really is an important bill which like the torture bill should not even have been needed.

He has very gradually lost some of the support he had earlier in the year per the polls. He is higher than he was back in Nov 2001, but I can't see how he can run with so little media support. I also don't understand why they like almost all other politicians better.

[wisteria]

10. Ignore the polls please. The most recent ones are definitely

questionable. Come on, Gore and Edwards.

[Mass]

12. Polls have no meaning at this point

It is all about name recognition. in 2002, neither Kerry or Dean registered in the polls.

[JI7]

11. thanks for the post

i go back and forth on this. Kerry knows going on these shows mostly involve stupid gotcha games like Russert does rather than real discussions on the issues which is Kerry's goal. but then again it is frustrating watching these shows sometimes which is why i don't do it much anymore.

i'm sure a lot of their anti Kerry stuff is a result of his not kissing their asses.

i do like what he did in going around the country and holding events to discuss the issues with the people. much of his positive press comes from the local smaller media also.

i do have a problem with them just lying about what he did or said though.

[Island Blue]

13. What kind of local media exposure has he been getting

as he's traveled around the country this year helping out other candidates (or for other reasons)? It seems to have been pretty good, no? I know after he appeared in Manchester there was some good local press reported here as there was when he appeared in New Jersey (when karannj saw him). I'm sure there are other examples that I can't think of off the top of my head.

While I realize that local reporting doesn't reach a very broad audience, I think it might be just as important as national exposure at this point because it gives folks a chance to perhaps get a more up close and personal look at the senator. This type of reporting also seems to lack some of the snark and cynicism of national reporting.

The national media is so damn pompous and full of themselves. They like to champion certain people (like McCain and Hillary) and dismiss others (like Kerry). I know Senator Kerry first priority is Massachusetts, but I hope he will also continue to travel around the country helping out others and getting some good local media attention along the way.

[Mass]

14. Once again, this morning on This Week was a good test

During the interview with the DCCC and DSCC leaders, Stephanopoulos quoted 3 positions in Iraq in the Democratic Party: those like Kennedy who voted NO, those like Clinton who clinged to their YES vote, and those like Edwards who say their vote was wrong. (of course, as Schumer and Emmanuel were there and they still think their vote was OK, it did not go farther. At least Schumer talked about Levin's amendment).

After that, during the round table, they were all talking about Edwards and how his statement was great, as compared to Kerry, he did not talk about troop withdrawal (actually I was happy they made this point clear).

I think that the reporters are avoiding talking about him, may be not so much because of a conspiration than because they dont think he is in, but the result is the same.

[JI7]

20. they said that ?

they said Edwards statement was great because he didn't talk about troop withdrawal ? did they say why this was great ?

also, perhaps it would be best to stop suggesting Edwards position is the same as Kerry's then. while he made some statements in general , those are things that people like Chuck Hagel also probably said. but we don't know about the specifics.

[Mass]

21. That is how I interpreted it.

However, I guess other people may have interpreted it differently.

Also, dont think that Edwards's position is the same as Kerry, after I reread the editorial a couple of times. There are a few elements that are absent:
- refusal of permanent basis.
- date at which we can hope for a full withdrawal.
- and probably a few minor details.

I am trying to be careful about that because I am not a fan of Edwards, so I dont want to get carried away, but, IMHO, Edwards is making a statement now that some courageous people in the Senate and the House cleared the way. They can call that leadership if they want. I dont think it is.

[wisteria]

22. I agree, and I kinda like Edwards if only because his wife is so

nice. But, to refer to him as leading the way is just media spin. Frankly, I woudn't push him if he did become our candidate.I'd vote for him,but I couldn't be as enthusiastic as I was with kerry.

[Mass]

24. I am a big fan of her. She is really great and simple.

[karynnj]

25. It was only because of his wife that I respected him at all

I still am concerned that there is too much gloss and no substance. I was surprised by the way people immediately accepted his mea culpa - which I thought simply came easily to him. Kerry's struck me as more heartfelt and was made even though it seems his actions were based on how he best thought he could help avert a war that was already set to happen. More than Clinton, I get the feeling that Edwards is very very slick and that his skill as a lawyer was that of a master salesman. For a campaign, that could be incredibly good -if people buy him. (As a human, I respect Kerry's choice to serve rather than using his charisma to earn a fortune as a trial lawyer as Edwards did.)

What I can't see is what he would do if elected. He is convincing to many when saying his vote was wrong - everyone cheers - ignoring that he was for invading when Bush did. Where he was in March 2003 concerns me more than how he voted in Oct 2002. I know Kerry wouldn't have invaded, but I only think Edwards wouldn't have. I really think the question now is whether he will disavow bases - as it says whether we are occupiers or not. If he won't there's an ocean between his and Kerry's positions.

Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers) was in NJ talking about the 2 wars and criticised leading Democrats as well as Bush, saying many won't give up the bases in the middle of oil fields and saying Hillary wanted to increase the number of troops. (from local paper article - I really wish I would have known he was speaking semi-locally.) It will be interesting to see if Levin's amendment will have a position on this.

[beachmom]

27. As a Mom, I'll tell you what bugged me about Edwards

In that Alex Pelosi film "Political Tourist" or similar title, she followed Edwards on his bus. He was giving her a tour, and then his two young children were there and she filmed the daughter and she gave the camera the most sour look. Obviously, the daughter had had it. I just can't approve of using your kids like props like that when they're so little. It would have been better to leave them at home with a nanny, and then come home to see them every week. What tipped me off to this was when Edwards was showing what was in the fridge, and he just HAD to point out the sippy cups -- like, look at me I'm a Dad, and look at my beautiful kids. Now look, I realize a family is part of the marketing of yourself, but the number one priority should be to protect your children and allow them to have a childhood, instead of expecting them to help YOUR career. That just bugged me to no end, and in that sense, the media did give him a free pass on that including when he became Kerry's VP pick.

Kerry is the opposite of that to the point that the media thought he didn't like kids nor was he comfortable with them. But that was because he actually cares about kids and wants to go look them in the eye, and chat with them. Although I've seen many pictures of him with kids, I haven't seen much video of that. Needless to say, he has always been highly protective of his family, including making sure that nothing came out in the public about his divorce, and the messy negotiations of child support and the like. I found an article from his ex-wife back in the '90s, and the divorce negotiations were horrible, but both of them knew to keep it to themselves, as to protect the children.

[jenndar]

28. Did you see Washington Wives?

The A&E documentary about the spouses during the primaries?

The scenes with Mrs. Edwards made me similarly uncomfortable. She was pretty much shown having to not only campaign for her husband, but take care of her young children, who clearly didn't understand what was going on and why they were being asked to behave the way they were. And what I inferred from the dialog on the documentary was that Emma Claire and Jack were allowed to run around and act like kids when the cameras weren't on them, but when the cameras were on them, they were expected to sit still and smile. It was really sad to watch.

[Island Blue]

29. My concern about Edwards is that he's just too politically anxious.

Not that he's too politically ambitious, I don't fault anyone for having lofty goals, but he's just too anxious to get to the top IMO. He was a one term senator and spent a good deal of that time running for president. I would feel much better about his motives if he were to run for governor in three years instead of president. North Carolina has a history of electing Democratic governors and I think he would make a good one.

[TayTay]

15. What was the 'prisons' Amendment in the Senate?

Seriously, what was that about? It was, to an extent, an 'inside the beltway' move that would re-assert Congressional control and oversight in the Iraq War. This isn't something that is going to widely translate. (It's about the rules. It's not, yet, about the morality of the prisons themselves.)

The Senate Democrats are engaged in a knock-down, drag-out fight with the Republicans over the relevancy of the Legislative branch of government. (Don't yawn yet, it gets worse.) Mr. Kerry was doing a very smart thing, he was asking Congress, in that earnest, 'What? We don't report to the Senate about this? I'm shocked!' Boy Scoutish voice why they don't know about things like having clandestine prisons in friendly foreign nations. ("I'm shocked at this behavior. Just shocked!") Why, Congress cannot be overlooked in this, it gives up the rights of the Senate to do their very job. (TayTay giggles and giggles. This is good stuff here. Bravo Senator, Bravo!)

The Rethugs were caught flat-footed on this. First of all, they don't want to talk about the prisons, which, according to the Rethugs, may or may not exist. (We can't say.) Then they have to talk about rendition and torture. Republicans are not in favor of torture, but, in case they were, they don't want to talk about it because it makes the electorate nervous. So, they can't say. And if there were these clandestine operations of the United States Government that were torturing people in lands that are subject to War Crime prosecution under the Geneva Conventions, well, then we can't comment on that. They can't say. They can neither talk about it or dismiss it. Poor little Rethugs. Bravo Senator Kerry, bravo! (I adore this. I live for this. What a gorgeous moment in the Senate. Sen. Kerry needs to get the Best Actor Award for his performance in this. Honestly, it was brilliant. He, of course, knows exactly what is going on. He just played this wonderfully and the REthugs all looked like they had just been caught with their hands in the pension fund till. Hahahahahaha! Bravo!)

Really, how can all that translate into a clear press in the outside world? It's too much nuance. But it is also a great floor for the actual debate that will come into the outside world. Keep your eye on the Senate tomorrow. There are more amendments coming that will seek to reestablish Senate (and Congressional) control over the war. The Democrats are attempting to paint the Republicans into a corner on this and force them into a public position where they have to defend the current running of the war. They have to defend THEIR use of clandestine torture. They have to defend the utter corruption of the money used in the war. The Senate Dems want to hang this around the REthug necks. It takes time and a hole lot of sweet little amendments. These are building blocks, not ends in themselves. Keep watching. This is getting really good.

[beachmom]

17. As far as the talk show circuit, Tay Tay, I agree

Why would he want to go on those dumb programs? I mean on MTP, Russert asked him about motherf**king Cambodia, and then Jon Stewart skewered him for not speaking coherently and being dull. After that, he was probably like, screw this, why would I subject myself to that again? It gets me nothing.

But as far as news goes, I think the MSM has just written him off and try to ignore him. That's just plain wrong.

The reason why I suggested PBS news is that the format is longer and Jim Lehrer doesn't do "gotcha" questions. He asks tough questions, but he has no interest in creating theater. But after I suggested we write to Jim Lehrer on a previous thread, I got to thinking that maybe he wouldn't even want to come on. That is somewhat hilarious if everybody is e-mailing the News Hour for John Kerry to come on, and JK is like "uh, no thanks". So I am blushing a little if that's the case. I don't want to cause him any more headaches than he needs!

[whometense]

18. I was just thinking about this question

this morning when I caught a glimpse of McCain blathering on for the zillionth time on one of the talkfests - I think it was Face the Nation - and promptly changed the channel.

I'm not sure what Kerry's strategy is vis a vis TV appearances, but he apparently thinks for now less is more. There is a definite possibility of overexposure and also lots of gotcha. There was a great moment on Fox this morning when Jay Rockefeller accused Chris Wallace (quite fairly) of not engaging in a serious discussion of the prewar intelligence issue. Wallace got defensive, but Rockefeller was right. All the bushies are doing is playing gotcha ("well, he said so toooooo...") In this atmosphere all Kerry could expect is a sort clip of him saying something supportive of the administration, and...they're off!

McCain is a PR master, to be sure, but he's also full of shit. He wants to be seen as the free thinker, yet he votes in near lockstep with the administration on everything except torture. That doesn't make him an independent thinker. It makes him a canny image maker.

I tend to think Kerry is consciously timing his actions, and that he feels it's too early to be out there on tv. He is doing so many public appearances that he can hardly be said to be hiding out. He's just flying a bit under the radar. After Bush dedicated part of his Veterans Day speech to Kerry (a BIG mistake on his part) and Kerry's busy Thursday and the repercussions of his Georgetown speech still filtering in, Kerry is much more in the public discourse right now than he has been since the election. He's making himself relevant.

[whometense]

23. Video

of Roberts and Rockefeller here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/13.html#a5846

[wisteria]

19. Well, if he chooses not to come on, than I'm sure we will hear

about it from PBS. I have heard that he continues to put out media alerts and the media has decided to pick and choose what they will cover. Actually, I would think that Kerrygoddess would be a good reference point on this whole issue.
As far as JK, well if he doesn't want to appear and he is asked,well I can't imagine him being anything but flattered.

[jenndar]

26. The only reason I think the prison amendment could've gotten

more play was that both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert brought it up on their shows the night before the Kerry amendment was passed and introduced. So a certain "call" was answered there - not on purpose, of course, but I still think it's something people would have found interesting.