Morning after comments

[whometense]

I thought people might have more thoughts this morning, so here's a thread for those.

Here's my morning after thought: Kerry was so smart to ration his tv appearances. It was obvious to me when I saw Matthews interview McCain and then Kerry that Kerry is a media "catch" and as such was treated with respect. It struck me that the tone Matthews took with him was almost what you'd expect him to use when talking to a president. He was much more combative with McCain.

And as a media "catch" you get to call the shots - hence requiring Matthews and Blitzer to interview on Kerry's turf. Very, very smart.

I agree with everyone else that the Matthews interview was great. Blitzer was trying too hard to play his usdual in-studio games, trying too hard to play gotcha and control the interview. Matthews was willing to ask the questions and sit back and listen to the answers. I admit I didn't think he was capable of that kind of interview. I'm thrilled to be proven wrong.

[Mass]

1. I liked what I saw on Hardball - It was amazing how Matthews respectsKerry

Particularly after the Feingold interview where Matthews basically made all the talk.

I have more problems with CNN, because Blitzer laid some traps that Kerry did not always avoid.

While he certainly did not diss Murtha (Jeez, what could they invent to discredit Kerry), he should have said something supportive on where he came from, then plug his plan. The other thing is that he tried too hard to say that he said he was wrong before Edwards. Of course, he is right and it must be frustrating for him, but it was not that diplomatic. Those are details, but unfortunately, those are the details that can be exploited too easily by some.

Otherwise, he was great.

[second edition]

2. I liked the Matthews interview the most. The Situation Room

not quite as much. But, I do not blame Kerry in anyway. I personally did not find anything wrong with any of his answers. I think he needed to mention that he had been a leader in coming to the conclusion this war was a mistake and that he regretted his vote and he has been up front in developing a plan. To many times this week it was implied that Edwards was leading the way on this. How can you lead if you don't look like a leader? As far as Mertha, I think Kerry was very gracious, their goals are the same just the means of getting there are different. Why would Kerry come out and fall in line with Mertha's plan when he has developed on of his own? Too bad the narrow minded "pull out right now group" read more into it than was actually there. I like Kerry's plan better too. Mertha's seemed more emotional and knee jerked than rational. I trust Kerry's judgment on this one. I hope my opinion here has not offended anyone.

[Mass]

3. Hello, It is so rare to see you here.

In an ideal world, I would agree with you. Kerry's comments were perfect and any intelligent person would not pull it until it is unrecognizable.

But we live in a word where a sentence can be taken out of context (DU being a perfect example of that).

I dont want Kerry to fall in line with Murtha. I happen to disagree with the potential implication of his plan (I have a few doubts with Kerry's too). I just think that his answer on Hardball on Murtha's comment was a lot better than the one on CNN.

As for Edwards, dont get me started on that.

[second edition]

5. I must have missed something.

I thought he said the same thing on CNN and Hardball about Murtha. I'll have to go back and read the transcripts.
The people here at DU would find fault with kerry on just about anything he said. They fish for things to twist and misinterpret. If people are going to out and out lie and make up things he said , then he will never be able to say anything right. Personally, what motivated Murtha, to all of a sudden, come out and say what he did? Has he received new information?
I will say one thing, it looks like there is to much politics going on and any persons motives at this point are going to start to be questioned.

[Mass]

7. I really regret that Kerry and Murtha did not sit together and propose

a plan that would include both aspects of their plans.

The fact to pull the troops is fine, but what do you do at the same time or in-between to stabilize the situation (so that you do not need to go back, which is something that Murtha does not hide could happen).

Kerry has a lot of things in his plan that are worth proposing, so that we can actually bring our troops back home, and not in Kuwait or somewhere else.

But this is the Democratic Party. We can probably not expect that.

[jillan]

21. Now that Kerry roared on the Senate floor attacking the swiftboating of

Murtha, maybe they will.

That could be history in the making, a House member and a Senate member providing a joint amendment. Has that ever happened?

[karynnj]

4. I agree that the Matthews show was by far better than the Wolf one

Wolf - who I try to not watch - with other people, he is incredibly manipulative and a Bush/Cheney cheerleader. (I still remember that he was practically estatic when Cheney found himself as the best VP.) Seeing him badger everyone Democrat in the lead up to the interview, I really thought this could be a real mess.

So, from those expectations - Kerry was great. I think the bigger trap was the 2008 question - where Kerry's answer was fine - until they took it absolutely out of context - and ignored that the topic for all but the last 2 minutes was Iraq.

I think he had to say that he had said his vote was wrong. He could have said at the Oct 26 Georgetown speech - obliquely saying before Edwards. (In reality, Kerry thought and said the war was wrong from before it started. If Edwards and Kerry are both in the primaries, I am certain who said the vote was wrong first will not be the key issue. Edwards looked like a lightweight in the 2004 primaries and was somewhat weak vs Cheney. The questio will be has he grown.)

Kerry did handle the Murtha question better on Matthews.

[Island Blue]

6. What was the time line of yesterday's events?

Wolf said that his interview with Sen. Kerry was recorded earlier in the day (but he didn't say exactly when). What time did Murtha speak about Iraq? Maybe JK handled the Murtha question better on Matthews because that interview was actually after his interview with Wolfie and he had had more time to digest and think about Murtha's comments. I don't know if that's the case of course - just a guess.

[Mass]

8. Murtha spoke in the AM.

Kerry's interview with Wolfie was recorded before 4 pm. I am not sure if Harball was live or not, but if yes, that may explain it. It may have seen that the answer on CNN was too short and decide to make it warmer.

[beachmom]

10. I watched both interviews that I taped last night

I did not go on the computer afterwards. I didn't listen to any spin whatsoever across the liberal blogosphere, watched the interviews only once, and I think in that sense I represent a typical American who watches something, and then doesn't look to pundits for an analysis.

I thought both interviews were great, and slightly varied, making them interesting to watch both. I don't think it was a problem for Kerry to say he disagreed with Murthe on Iraq plans, because his is, in fact, a "third way" -- between stay the course and withdraw now. Although I was moved by what Murthe said, I just think Kerry's way is better. I also didn't have a problem with Kerry saying that he said it first (Re: Edwards saying he was wrong). I don't know, this is politics not careful diplomacy with the North Koreans behind closed doors. Kerry said it first, and goshdarnit, if he doesn't have the nerve to set the record straight who the hell else will? People can whine and moan about it, but if they check the timeline they will see that Kerry is telling the truth. After all of this crap about how Kerry "didn't fight back against the Swifties", now he's being demonized for setting the record straight. This was nothing against Edwards, it was against the lazy media that just didn't bother to do their job.

Matthews interview: I agree with someone else who said that it was like he was interviewing the president. He seemed slightly intimidated, which I have to say I liked very much. It did bug me a little that McCain was a "hero", but Kerry wasn't. They both had their heroic moments in Vietnam, but it looks to me like the SBL did their job casting doubt on Kerry's service. Now no one is going to refer to him as a decorated Vietnam war hero. He's now only a Vietnam veteran. On one hand, this breaks my heart, on the other, maybe it's good to take away the biography and the medals and all of those outside achievements, and take a look at John Kerry, the man, and see what he is made of, being still so strong and articulate, after a defeat last year that left a lot of us depressed for months. That is real to me, and can never be taken away.

Blitzer interview: I actually liked the more confrontational style just because I wanted to see how Kerry would react to it. If you recall, some time back there was an article about an Irish reporter who was very confrontational with *, interrupting him 8 times, because he was simply repeating 2 year old talking points, and she only had 10 minutes with him, and wanted more from him. Afterwords, he was really rude to her (although to be fair, Kerry lost it after an interview with GMA in '04, when they asked why he only threw his ribbons, not his medals, but I digress), and then to top it off, filed a complaint with the Irish embassy. So back to CNN, Blitzer interrupted Kerry several times, because Kerry was going back to his own talking points about his Iraq plan and intelligence failures, etc., and Blitzer wanted more. Kerry showed no annoyance whatsoever, and was quite gracious, after Wolf said something like "If I may ask more about this" which was an interruption. Kerry wasn't weak, but showed respect to Wolf, who wanted to follow up and clarify positions. I liked the 2008 talk, because Wolf got a little more out of him than any other reporter. It doesn't really matter, guys, because most people are not watching too closely about an election so far away. I just want to know what Kerry is thinking, and he shed a little light on what has been going on in his head. (The only time I was annoyed with Blitzer was when he mentioned the SBVT. I think that will forever be a source of hurt and pain to JK, and it is certainly irrelevant now. Best not to bring it up, press corps. Okay?)

And, finally, I think that this "Kerry uses Botox" crap can be put to rest. He LOOKED better in the Hardball interview, even though the interviews were within hours of each other AND in the same room. Obviously the lighting used by MSNBC looked better on him than CNN. There's no rhyme or reason to it. It's all about lighting. And I'm sure in person, it's all irrelevant -- can any Kerrycrats confirm that he looks great in person all the time, every time, and that lighting, photography, and TV cameras can sometimes be deceiving?

[whometense]

14. Re: your last point

I can confirm it. I've always said Kerry looks 100% better in person than he does on camera - don't know why. Part of it is certainly lighting, and what that photographer said about his eyes being too much of the time in shadow.

But in person he does always looks great, and I've seen him up close a number of times.

[ginnyinWI]

17. I have a trivial question

I noticed during the CNN interview that at one point JK tucked his chin down and looked up at Wolf from under his eyebrows (think Princess Diana's way) and wondered if doing that signifies anything--is it defensive, or extra thoughtful, extra aggressive, or was it just random? Does it reflect any mood or emotion in particular? Or was I the only one to notice or care? :shrug:

[whometense]

18. Actually,

I noticed that too. I don't know what it meant, though. I'll have to go watch the tape again. Do you remember at what point in the interview that was? I'm definitely going to watch it again tonight and I'll weigh in with what I think. For what it's worth. His face is incredibly expressive, and if you watch him carefully I think his face gives away what he's feeling, especially when it's not in complete accord with what he's saying. Living as I do with two (three when my older son is home) sensitive, intelligent thoughtful men, I'm used to face-reading as a supplement to listening. The words just don't always give you the full picture. :D

[ginnyinWI]

19. somewhere in the middle

I too will have to go back and analyze this further. He does have an expressive face, and those deep-set eyes can vary a lot depending on the angle. And their color changes, as we've discussed before! I do love reading body language and picking up subtle clues.

I guess I do it with my husband a lot, because he's not one to talk about his feelings much, leaving me to read just his non-verbal clues. I sometimes know how he feels even when he doesn't know himself.

[whometense]

20. Same with my husband.

and with my boys as well. It's written all over their faces but they often have no idea.

[ginnyinWI]

22. ok I quickly scanned through both interviews again

I think it was the Hardball interview where he did it--I was mistaken. To me, it seemed like he was just being very intent on being persuasive and making his point. (For once somebody let him say his peace!) He smiled more during this interview, didn't he, and seemed more relaxed.

About your guys--yeah that is typical isn't it. My son is more expressive than his dad, and more willing to talk--maybe the result of being sandwiched between two sisters! He's always been one of those "exuberant" outgoing types (like Kerry, a Saggitarius), always upbeat, active, intense about what he's doing at the moment, and never still for long!

[_dynamicdems]

9. And what a night it was!

The Matthews interview was far better because of the deferential tone he took with the Senator. The surroundings, Senator Kerry's office on Capital Hill, set the tone to some degree. The setting: powerful Senator on his home turf surrounded by his books and memorabilia, comfortable and relaxed, ever the gracious host. A brilliant move on Senator Kerry's part. Matthews was the guest of the Senator and he behaved himself accordingly. Matthews is a political junkie. While he holds little respect for individual politicians, he obviously respects the process and the institutions of government. While the setting wasn't the oval office, it was still impressive, and Matthews was impressed. To him, the invitation by Senator Kerry to do the interview in his Senate office showed him a measure of respect, which Matthews returned in the tone of the interview. This interview told as much about the interviewer as it the the Senator.

Blitzer on the other hand, proved himself to be more of a hack. He displayed an almost paparazzi style of interviewing. While the setting did seem to put him off guard to some extent, it was only because he recognized that he didn't have the home court advantage. What was most interesting in comparing these two "new media" pundits was that, while Chris Matthews seemed to have a love of our government, Wolf Blitzer showed a predilection for anarchy. In other words, he's a "take on the system" kind of guy. Interesting if you remember the criticism he got early on in the Iraq war for his embedded reports. What I enjoyed most about the Blitzer interview was that Senator Kerry was obviously toying with him on the question of 2008. He didn't tell him a damn thing, but he did it in such a way that Blitzer thought he'd gotten a big scoop. The thing you don't get about Senator Kerry at first is his devilish sense of humor. He was playing with Blitzer and Blitzer didn't even know it.

As there was last year, there will be those who will pick apart Senator Kerry's every word, but I think his words will hold their own and will stand the test of time.

It has been an annoyance to many of us that Senator Kerry's work has not been treated as news. Last Monday's speech on the Senate floor was largely ignored. I'd rather see his work treated as news than to see the Senator treated as a media catch, but you take what you can get and the interviews were wonderful. Isn't it amazing that we owe all of this to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? Actually, I think Senator Kerry manipulated their criticisms. He does have the ability to antagonize certain types of individuals, does he not?

[karynnj]

11. I hate to admit it but he is pretty skilled at antagonizing

certain individuals while looking his choir boy innocent, high minded, good government self. Then he maintains his cool constantly adding more fuel to the fire very eloquently, while they explode. It's a good thing that his heart and values are good, because he would be an incredible threat if the RW had him as a candidate. They woudn't need a Rove.

[TayTay]

13. I always liked Joe Klein's phone booth analogy

though it is terribly snarky. (I know, I know, but I posted a great defense of how I felt last night, so I'm allowed a little snark appreciation now.)

And then Kerry's primordial sense of survival on the battlefield, honed and burnished in Vietnam, kicks in, and he does what he must to win: he acts like a real politician. From a distance, the process seems like a comic-book-hero transformation. Kerry enters the phone booth sipping French wine and emerges with a knife in his teeth, ready for battle.

I think we saw both Clark Kent and Superman this week. It can give you whiplash sometimes.

[whometense]

15. Don't remember reading that,

but it's wonderful. Whiplash is a good word for it. What got to me last night (in a good way) was watching how much fun he was having. It's been a hell of a year, and it was wonderful to see him still himself, and still able to enjoy it all.

[beachmom]

12. Yes, good point on * and Cheney

This actually works as a good talking point to Republicans. Why is * wasting his time worrying what Kerry said or what he's saying now? It's one thing if he went after Reid or some of the others who have gotten more traction this year. But it really was quite pathetic if you think about it. It's almost like Kerry should call * up and say, "Ah, Mr. President. YOU WON!!!! I lost. It's YOUR JOB!!! Now stop playing nostaligic pretending like it's still 2004 and start DOING YOUR JOB!!! I"ve been doing mine, so you do yours. Good Day!"

Should we all send thank you notes to the WH or what?

Back to Wolf Blitzer, let me put it you guys this way. If President * were to be interviewed which way do you like better? Matthews or Blitzer? I think our political leaders should have their feet put to the fire, and see if they can hack it. Kerry can. * never could. Great Britain wouldn't put up with this wimpiness. I heard a BBC reporter tell Tony Blair that he wasn't fit to be prime minister. Was it unfair? Who knows. As unpleasant as it would be, I think that Kerry could go toe to toe with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, who would probably ask something like "since you voted for the war, how do you feel having the blood of 2000 dead American soldiers on your hands?" That's the anti-war Left's position with Democrats who voted yes to the IWR. It would be uncomfortable as hell, but he could do that interview and come out of it with his head high. Because he has thought through everything he's done. He might even chastise Goodman and remind her of his lifetime of seeking peace over war. But I like confrontational journalism as long as it is about the most important things -- like war, healthcare, taxes, corruption, torture, and so on.

[whometense]

16. Excellent points.

And while I'm at it, I agree with what you said in your earlier post as well.

As a Kerrybot it gave me great pleasure to see Chris Matthews giving him some long-overdue respect. And I don't think it did any harm to Kerry's image for the audience to see him treated that way, either.

But Kerry can take it, and he weathered the Blitzer interview just fine. I also vehemently agree with what you said about the Edwards thing. True is true. It had nothing to do with Edwards, as you said,; he was just correcting the record. I doubt Edwards himself would have found anything to disagree with there. If Kerry learned nothing else over the course of the campaign, I'd hope he learned that you can't allow misconceptions to stand. So even if it ruffled some delicate DU GD feathers, so be it. He said what needed to be said.