Kerry On Fire on "Meet The Press"

Once again, John Kerry gives us a no-holds barred vision of what must immediately be done to resolve the incendiary situation in Iraq.

In his appearance on NBC's Meet The Press this morning, Senator Kerry (D-MA) continued to passionately press his case for holding Iraqis accountable and responsible for their own government.

In discussing his plan for successfully ending the US presence in Iraq, released earlier this week in an op-ed in The New York Times, Kerry continued to be the strong and leading voice in America on getting tough with Iraq's leaders.

Two deadlines and a date.

Fareed Zakaria, in lending his support to Kerry this morning, on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, said we've hidden behind idea that we'll hold elections, but that doesn't get you beyond the central question of power distribution between the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiias.  If U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad cannot get them to come together, Zakaria says, "it's worth it to listen to guys like John Kerry and Jack Murtha because we are not going to baby-sit a civil war."

In listening to Senator Kerry last week on the Senate floor, and today on Meet The Press, I was reminded of the Senator Kerry who first came to Washington 35 years ago to bring courage and character to the debate over a failed war and a failed foreign policy.  He was passionate, truthful, and representative of the growing national consciousness about the immorality of the war in Iraq.

Kerry was short, sweet and to the point with Russert this morning.  Two deadlines and a date.

What else does he want?

"I have a pretty short message, Tim.  Tell the truth, fire the incompetents, get out of Iraq."

Amen to that Senator Kerry.

Cross posted at The Democracy Cell Project.

•  Fuck Joe Biden (D-BOA)*

  Why didn't Kerry say this stuff in 2004?  Arrgh!  Better late than never, though.

  *(Bank of America bought MBNA.)

  by Sharon Jumper on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:11:25 AM PDT

  •  Twice now

    Why do our Presidential Candidates, twice in a row now, become the men we want them to be AFTER THEY LOSE???

    I'm extremely happy that Kerry is standing up and fighting back a bit, I wish all the Dems would do so, but had he been like this in 2004 and late 2003, he'd have a little more power to change things methinks.

    by Perdition on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:39:43 AM PDT

    •  It's a terrible pity

      he didn't take a similar tack with the Swift Boaters. This type of attitude and bluntness would have put an end to that nonsense pretty damn quick.

      by lcbo on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:03:38 AM PDT

      •  argh, i'd love to redo 2004

        but unfortunately we can't or we'll hijack this diary.  imho, let's stay on message & it's simple:

        " Tell the truth, fire the incompetents, get out of Iraq."

        let's just welcome the Kerry of today & keep supporting ANY candidate that fights - FIGHTS - for progressive causes.

        this also does a couple things:

        1.  show that we're not crazy foaming nutcases that can't listen to reason.  we will support any candidate that will support progressive causes.

        2.  it will also show the legitimacy of the blogosphere b/c frankly we had alot to do with the revitalization in the Democratic Pary going on.

        Yes, Revitalization.  Pass that meme on.

        (yes, i know we got plenty more to do - but its becoming more & more true)

        Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

        by krazypuppy on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:50:26 AM PDT

        •  Prez Kerry?

          If he'd spoken as he did today in 2004--firmly, directly, crisply, unflinchingly--he'd be President right now--period!

          If he keeps going like this, he may get another chance, tho he'd better bring a mop--there'll be an awful lot to clean up!!!

          by serrano on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:12:26 AM PDT

          •  Food For Thought

            As we know 2008 will be here sooner than we think. Kerry may run again. He like Gore learned some hard lessons.

            My Food For Thought is that we (and I include myself) should get over the mistakes Kerry made in 2004 and focus more on who he is today and not who he was yesterday.

            Right now I am a Feingold man. But Feingold may not win the nomination. We know what type of candidate that Iowa and New Hampshire choose and how that overly effects the rest of the primaries. As such Kerry may be in the top 2 or 3 that are in serious contention for the nomination. Because of that we need to look at him, his views, his fight as they are now and then - not as they were yesterday.

            by talex on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:54:23 AM PDT

            •  A-Freaken-Men!!!!

              n/t

              by mxwing on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:09:07 AM PDT

            •  Argh. Cough! Splzt!

              The last thing we need is some DemoBorgCollective of KerryDeanFeingoldHillaryReid dividing our attention and support by individually thinking they'll make the Presidency. We don't need a field of candidates from which we'll merely choose the one with the least baggage--that's how we lost in '04. We only need One. Real. Candidate. One that has already shown his electability by being elected before, and has since grown only stronger.

              by episty on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:42:37 AM PDT

              •  who?

                Who do you have in mind?

                by chantedor on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:02:11 PM PDT

              •  Jimmy Carter? n/t

                by XStryker on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:22:22 PM PDT

              •  someone in mind?

                I notice you say "his" - so I'm assuming you do.  But everyone has a different opinion of who the One. Real. Candidate is.  Hence, primaries.

                by fishhead on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:35:21 PM PDT

                •  Gore

                  "One that has already shown his electability by being elected before"

                  by collapse on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:18:27 PM PDT

            •  Pardon my French, But Fuck Iowa and New Hampshire

              "We know what type of candidate that Iowa and New Hampshire choose and how that overly effects the rest of the primaries."

              We give those two states disproportionately more influence than they deserve, not because they've earned it or deserve it or have some sot of pulse on the wrist of all of America or that they are some Nostradamus for what the country needs.  They are just people like you and us.

              Why do we engage in this folly of figuring out who they would like as they try to predict who the rest of the country would like.  Why not vote for who you like and let other take care of their damnned selves!?

              As far as John Kerry goes, vote for him if you like him, don't if you don't.  But why waste time on trying to predict how he'll play in Peoria?

              Who was the last democratic non-incumbent that Iowa and NH voted for that won the general?  Carter?  That was thirty freaking years ago!!

              My suggestion to future primary and caucus voters?  Use your own fncking brain and heart and vote for who you like best and let the chips fall where they may.

              The day that I vote for someone becuase of what I speculate someone else might think of them is the day I stop voting.

              P.S.  This vitriol isn't just for the post to which this is linked.  It just struck a raw nerve.

              by MRL on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:53:21 PM PDT

              •  a double recommend

                I'd give this post double recommendation if I could!!

                by jabb on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:09:16 PM PDT

          •  But then Kerry was on CNN

            Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.

            Wolf asked him if he supported Feingold's censure resolution.

            Kerry said, very simply, "Yes."

            But then he couldn't stop himself from launching into a tortured explanation of what that "yes" meant -- it depended on what unfolded, how the investigation came out, the hearings, etc. etc.

            He should have just stopped at "yes."

            by quaoar on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:05:38 AM PDT

            •  Yep. He needs to...

              keep doing crispness workouts. He's gotten a little soft (i.e. verbose) since the debates.

              by mxwing on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:11:52 AM PDT

              •  Yes, It's Much More the Delivery

                than the message.  It's pretty impressive, really, how many things he was right about.  Just got drowned out by the damned Swift Boat Assholes, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't let that happen again.

                I recall that when we were demonstrating against Vietnam, his entrance made a difference.  I think he does, too, and let's all hope he can have a similar impact on this mess.  

                I like his clear, crisp prescription, and I think he's right.

                by serrano on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:21:59 AM PDT

                •  Rove/co-horts getting off Bush's jet in Army gear

                  dissing/making fun of Senator Kerry for going duck-hunting in Ohio during the election made me sick! At least Senator Kerry knows how to shoot a gun and knows how to respect its use.  Rove, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice and most of their gang are chickenhawk idiots that avoided the military and have now RUINED OUR REAL MILITARY with their corporate corruption. We can not allow Bush to attack Iran, he hasn't begun to repair his 1st 2 countries that he bombed.  I suggest a mandated 12-STEP program for Mr. Bush because he certainly doesn't have God or Jesus talking in his ear!  We need to support Kerry, Feingold and Murtha right now! 2009 is a long way a way and Bushco needs to be controlled now!

                  by mjd in florida on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:57:54 AM PDT

                  •  And Of Course

                    We can't forget good ol' Dick Cheney, who far from having any kind of respect for a gun, shoots his hunting buddies. I don't think John Kerry did anything remotely resembling that fiasco.

                    by Grahamdubya on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:07:54 PM PDT

                •  that was,

                  no doubt quite a measured risk, and bravery on his part.

                  by Sophie Blue on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:23:08 PM PDT

                •  Yes, less is often more

                  One of my favorite quotes, generally attributed to Winston Churchill...   early in his career, after handing a 5-page memo to the Prime Minister, he added, "I would have written a 1 page memo, but I didn't have time."

                  Who knows if the details are right, but the point is right on -- sometimes, less is more.  Sometimes, a direct, clear, straightforward, short statement beats the hell out of a long, detailed explanation -- even if the latter might be right on the money.

                  Sometimes -- and ALL the time, when it comes to elections.  

                  by Hlinko on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:05:56 PM PDT

            •  It must be difficult

              trying to curb his wordiness. He's a great conversationalist, and over dinner and drinks, such an eloquent speaker can be riveting. In the political arena, where the message has to be short, and crisp, and pack a memorable punch that will stick, wordiness does need to be curbed. He has been fine tuning the message a lot lately, and doing a great job, but I imagine his natural loquaciousness just brims to the surface anyway at times. Imagine being his age, and that set in your ways, and having to suddenly alter your entire communication style. It's probably frustrating for him...

              I think lately, he has been making a concerted effort to do what you're suggesting, though. I can definitely notice a change.

              by AlienCode on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:33:24 PM PDT

              •  He should take lessons from Feingold.

                I am so impressed by Feingold's economy of verbiage. He always manages to get his no bullshit points across in short concise sentences and in a very common Joe Everyman speaking style. I think he's possibly the best I've ever seen.

                Kerry's explanations still suck sometimes, even when he's being concise. For example, there is a perfectly justified reason for his "I voted for it before I voted against it," yet still his explanation is lame. He really is not a great communicator.

                When pumpkinhead asked him about the Bushies' possibly nuking Iran, I was sitting there talking at the TV, pleading with Kerry - Please say it. Go ahead and say it. You can do it. Just utter the words...   "They're nuts." "Bush and his neocon advisers are insane." "They're crazy idiots." Someone needs to utter the words on TV. Now's your chance, John. His performance up to that point gave me hope that he might actually break out and speak the scary truth. But no. Instead, some typical Senator-speak: blah blah... deeply irresponsible blah blah. Oh well. It's still an improvement.

                by miasmo on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:00:48 PM PDT

                •  Oh, God, there are a zillion things

                  I'd like to hear Kerry say, like this, perhaps...

                  "Hey Dumbya! Choke on my great big Massachusetts liberal wang, you shriveled waste of a nutsack! God Bless America!"

                  That would be HOT.

                  But sadly, I guess politicians have to be eloquent, or something. :-) I definitely prefer harsher language to gentle chiding, but unfortunately, that sort of thing gets a Senator in hot water. Rumor has it cough cough that Kerry is known to use pretty salty language in person, among friends...so he definitely has it in him.

                  Just one little slip on TV would be sweet, though.

                  I do believe Kerry is a stellar communicator - I guess it just depends on which style you prefer. I love a great intellectual - and he is one.

                  I also like when he uses the "F" word, admittedly. :-)

                  by AlienCode on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:56:59 PM PDT

                  •  Ha ha

                    "Hey Dumbya! Choke on my great big Massachusetts liberal wang, you shriveled waste of a nutsack! ..." is obviously outside the bounds of anything that could be expected from a prominent politician. But I sincerely don't think my hope that Kerry would actually use the word "nuts" or "insane" was quite so unrealistic. As evidence, I offer the following comment, which was spoken on the very same Sunday morning:

                    JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY - "The idea of a nuclear strike on Iran is completely nuts."

                    by miasmo on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 11:26:11 AM PDT

                    •  Hahaha

                      No, your suggestion is far more realistic! Although, "nuts" and "nutsack" are not too far off. Maybe if he gets reallly pissed off, he'll graciously add the "ack" for his constituents... :-) ya know, give us a little extra "sumthin' sumthin"...

                      by AlienCode on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 01:39:24 PM PDT

                •  I disagree

                  He called it "cowboy diplomacy".  I like that, and we should call it that.

                  Kerry was excellent in that interview.  I agree with Aliencode that he has really been working on being more concise and quite frankly, not taking any s*** anymore from the likes of Tim Russert.  Russert tried and tried to set him up, and Kerry was fearless setting him straight.

                  On the poignant side, I really was touched when he mentioned that he visited the Vietnam Wall last night.  He's been there countless times; he didn't need to go last night.  Yet this has been a momentous week for him -- this stuff is real for him, no doubt in my mind.  He REALLY wants the troops out.  

                  You know I heard this quote today at church (sorry can't remember who said it, but I think it was a scientist):

                  "When you first come out with a new truth, first they ridicule you, then they oppose you, and then, finally, they accept your notion as self evident"

                  That's how it is with Iraq.  The RNC has already ridiculed him, but I think by next week, you're going to hear more reasoned opposition talk.  By this summer, the idea that our troops need to be withdrawn will seem obvious to all but the last fanatical neocon holdouts.  I pray that acceptance of it doesn't come too late -- like 2009.

                  by beachmom on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:59:55 PM PDT

              •  My gosh, after that simpleton of a President

                who can't even speak one sentence in whole words, I wouldn't mind one bit to have a very wordy next President.

                Rather someone who think and talk at the same time than someone who can neither think nor talk and certainly both not at the same time.

                by mimi on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:01:01 PM PDT

                •  Heartily agree!

                  Listening to Kerry talk about his prostate surgery is far more engrossing than listening to Chimpy choking on his words as if they were pretzels.

                  It's maddening!

                  by AlienCode on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:11:50 PM PDT

          •  Prez Kerry, but...

            I'd actually prefer not to see him win the nomination in 2008. There probably is no other candidate with whom I agree more than Kerry, except Leader Pelosi, but I don't like his chances in another Presidential election. The swifties succeeded in their goal to brand Kerry as a traitor. Their intent was not simply to brand him for one election. They branded him for life, making him unelectable outside of New England. I agree less with Gore, but would like to see him run. After all, in hindsight,wasn't he right on EVERY point he made in 2000? I'd also prefer Hillary, but I'm not sure if my nerves will handle that.

            by viriginia liberal on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:02:21 PM PDT

            •  Who is the GOP sending to the plate?

              If Frist is their guy, my dog could beat Frist in a general election.  

              It all depends.  It's a long way off.  Right now I like Clark.  But Kerry is scoring points here.

              by daveriegel on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:58:51 PM PDT

              •  McCain, Allen or Romney

                It won't be Frist.  Your dog could be Frist, but not my cat.  Frist has had the better of cats during his medical career.

                McCain's looking like the early leader.  George Allen seems to have a lot of support, but people really haven't been exposed to him, so he may just be all resume and hope at this point.  Romney is the leading Governor and you can't discount a Governor running against Senators (although Allen has Gov. experience).

                I like our chances with whoever the GOP throws up against us, but McCain makes me the most nervous.  I just don't trust him.  He's a pure "Conservative Yes Man" in "Moderate Maverick" clothing.

                If you want to learn more about the GOP potential candidates...

                www.dems4pres.com/opposition.html

                by dumbledoresarmy on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:47:50 PM PDT

        •  I've been pretty critical of Kerry recently...

          but I am willing to say: I can change my mind. This is more like it. Now two things:

          1. Repeat the meme at least one million times

            Senator.

          2. Let's help him by writing our newspapers,

            emailing PumpkinHead and calling our
            Congresscritters.
           

          by Nestor Makhnow on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:03:33 AM PDT

          •  Critical is OK, Nestor -

            and saying that you are willing to reconsider your stance when new information is introduced is admirable. I'm giving you high marks for your reasonable and balanced comment.  

            by AlienCode on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:18:08 PM PDT

          •  I think a lot of people could change...

            and support Kerry.  But the wounds are still pretty fresh from '04.  The first time he launches into one of his long-winded answers people will be questioning him again.  That's not to say he can't win the nom. again...he certainly can.

            I don't know though.  I liken Kerry to an old Boyfriend that you've split up with and then have second thoughts about getting back together with.  But then you remember that he wasn't "the one" and you're glad you didn't give it a second chance.  I see a lot of people flirting with the idea of going back to Kerry for another try, but in the end they decide it's time to move on.  That's just my take on it.

            Kerry Boyfriend Analogy

            by dumbledoresarmy on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:53:45 PM PDT

        •  By fire the incompetents

          He means W hehehehe

          by TalkieToaster on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:14:12 AM PDT

        •  I'll pass it along, but in case someone wants

          something a little more specific, I would say?

          by dkmich on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:18:10 AM PDT

          •  maaaaaaaaaan

            if you can't find something more specific, you is a sick sick puppy!

            ok...sorry, i don't where that came from but i'm just getting pumped from cleaning up the house (finally) & from kerry & feingold cleaning house...

            about time!

            let's work on specifics together, eh?  a simple concise message for the Dems to use to win in 2006 & 2008 & whatever....

            Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

            by krazypuppy on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:17:07 PM PDT

            •  A clean house feels incredibly good. n/t

              by dkmich on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 02:13:36 AM PDT

        •  Dean

          Dean has always been as outspoken as Kerry has now apparently become.  The American people (with help from the MSM and the GOP slime echo machine) weren't ready to hear the truth.  Maybe now they will listen to the Dems.

          by Do Tell on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:39:06 AM PDT

          •  I think that American People ...

            ...were ready to hear the truth.  But that slime echo machine did an effective job of obscuring that it was the truth.

            by sj on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:47:47 PM PDT

        •  Onward and Upward!!!

          2006 and 2008!!!

          Together, America can do better!

          Tell the truth, fire the incompetents, get out of Iraq!

          Kerry was sizzling Hot!

          by Wary on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:40:09 AM PDT

      •  Good point

        Kerry should have---at every opportunity---called the Swift boaters the lying bastards that they are.

        by formernadervoter on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:56:27 PM PDT

      •  Do you get the impression

        that this new and improved no-nonsense Kerry is sort of brimming with frustration over that very same point you just made? I kind of do. I believe he was steered very wrong in 2004, and has learned from that. Anyone can make a mistake or a poor judgement call in the heat of the moment, and then in retrospect say "Well SHIT. Now that the smoke's cleared, I know better what I should have done, and what I'll do next time."

        I won't say Kerry is perfect and incapable of making mistakes. I will say, though, that I have faith that he learns from his mistakes, and the Kerry of the future (and present) is a lot more hard-hitting than the Kerry of 2004. He was dealing with a lot then - the grueling election, the attacks on his character, and also, cancer. He wasn't at his "fighting weight", so to speak, but I see all that changing right before my very eyes.

        I have a feeling we will never again bear witness to John Kerry taking any shit from anybody ever again.

        "It was then that I snapped..."

        Just a hunch. :-) Hope it pans out.

        by AlienCode on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:45:54 PM PDT

        •  His reaction to Allard proves that!

          I mean, it was so fast.  Allard repeated the same old tired BS about Kerry "with a finger to the political wind".  And within an hour, Kerry got up on that Senate floor and said "nobody spins me!".  That was fantastic, and I have to say that it did seem in contrast to '04.  It was awesome to see.  More, more, more, Senator Kerry.  We all LOVE pissed off Kerry.

          by beachmom on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:08:12 PM PDT

          •  Oh yes!

            He responded, fast and furious, before the next news cycle hit, which is key.

            Allard's not fit to lick the shit off the bottom of Kerry's shoes and he knows it. After he got done attacking Kerry like a whiny little bitch, he was still patting himself on the smarmy, skunk-striped back when Kerry came back up out of nowehere, and tore him a new corn chute, then called it a day.

            Next thing you know, the Repkes are spinning like gerbils in an exercise wheel, trying in vain to refute Kerry, and looking like asses in the process. The smell of their desperation was priceless and oh, so sweet.

            UNGH. LOVE. IT.

            (P.S. - I bear no ill will whatsoever toward either gerbils or skunks, and am fully aware that both of the above mentioned critters have far more intellectual capacity than Wayne Allard, and the entire RNC put together.)

            by AlienCode on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:44:25 PM PDT

    •  It's the advisors

      specifically the advisor....Bob Shrum!  The guy is the Chicago Cubs when it comes to elections (no offense Cubs' fans).  Why anyone would listen to a perennial loser is beyond me.

      by jkfp2004 on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:48:29 AM PDT

      •  The 'Prevent' Defense that Doesn't

        Ever watch a football team shift from what worked to a "prevent" defense (letting their opponents have lots of small successes in the name of preventing a "big play) - only to lose in the last few minutes?

        Endless times over the years political "consultants" for the Democratic party have lost elections for candidates by having them "play it safe" and "avoid controversy."  When the advisor's idiot ideas fail - the losing candidate gets blamed while the losing advisor goes on to damage other candidates.  

        It seems Democratic candidates hire political consultants the way Bush hires FEMA officials - solely by their connections without regard for their abilities.  This is why Kerry's campaign ended up like post-Katrina New Orleans.

        We need to start a chart of which political advisors have winning records versus those that have great DNC connections and/or losing records.  Post the chart, and start linking donations to campaigns that stay away from the loser advisors.

        by RepubAnon on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:30:01 AM PDT

        •  I agree. Poor advisors are a problem but there is

          another problem with many of the Democratic advisors: they are in it for their own careers. Rove, as rotten an apple as he is, is staunchly loyal to his man. I don't think Kerry's advisors were as loyal as their Republican counterparts. Some were loyal and some were good, but few were both loyal and good. Loyalty can't be overlooked because it is the Achilles Heel of the Democratic Party. Sure list the incompetents, but also keep an eye on the ambitious who will sell you out for a byline.

          Quite a few Democrats were looking ahead to 2008 during the 2004 campaign. They were in it for themselves first and foremost. There were bad advisors in the Kerry campaign, but there were also bad advisors outside of the Kerry campaign: top Dems with only one thought for the future and it wasn’t a Kerry Administration.

          by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:05:48 AM PDT

          •  He also Said very Clearly Which I appreciate

            " It was my Campaign I made mistakes and I take responsibility for them"

            Crisp and clear he stood up and took his pill like a big boy if he runs him and feeingold are the 2 I am choosing between that is for sure..Oh and FUCK YOU BIDEN..though anyone else find it kinda fiunny Russert used a quote from bill mahr...

            by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:37:37 AM PDT

          •  Rove

            Rove worked well for Bush as he was almost his ONLY advisor for many, many, years.  Remember the relationship that exists between them, Bush is a lazy frat boy who doesn't like to work, think, or read, he needed a bully boy like Rove who was extremely loyal - only to Bush, and who would not leave him once the electing job was over.  How many other senior campaign advisors actually followed the candidate into high office?  (maybe someone has a better memory than I)

            Also, Rove is willing to do Bush's dirty work, or order it done through the GOP and their mouthpieces, how many advisors would do that for their bosses?  Rove may very well be looking at jail time.  

            OTOH, Carville was a loser until Clinton was elected, but he may have just been in the right place at the right time.  Carville is now about as radioactive as Bush.  

            But then, who needs advisors when voter fraud works better and costs less?

            by Do Tell on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:52:46 AM PDT

            •  Carville was a loser?

              This is totally wrong. Carville and Begala were the hot campaign management team in 1992, getting them to run his campaign was a coup for Clinton. They ran winning statewide camapigns for Bob Caset, Harris Wofford, and Zell Miller.

              by Matthew Gertz on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:14:40 PM PDT

              •  When did James Carville...

                marry Mary Matalin?

                After this many losses, I do not trust him.  Sure, he still talks the talk, but where is the evidence that he walks the walk?

                I keep feeling like I am watching a fixed baseball game with Carville and Matalin as the crooked coaches.

                by Naniboujou on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:21:48 PM PDT

                •  You can thank Carville...

                  for the disasterous elections in Bolivia.  Thanks to him, we have to deal with morales for the foreseeable future.

                  Is Carville a loser?  Yeah, Carville is a loser and a charletan, along with Begala.  I hope no one buys their book, because they tried to copy Markos and Jerome's ideas as their own, and then get their book out there firs, because they had the pull with Editors and publishers on the inside.

                  Pisses me off, since they both poo poo the netroots and don't understand the first fucking thing about them.

                  by jibsail on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:40:46 PM PDT

                  •  Have you read the book?

                    Because in it, they speak of DailyKos and MyDD in very high esteem.

                    by jkfp2004 on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:27:34 PM PDT

              •  You got troll rated because

                flip-flopped is a comment that is usually made by trolls.  Generally speaking, we only credit trolls with that kind of thinking, namely that one's worl'd view should remain the same over a span of say, four years, when events CLEARLY have not.

                Further, if you want to talk about flip flopping, and believe that sort of crap as being valid reasoning, I am sure someone around here could post for you a list of about a THOUSAND purely political based flip-flops of the White House resident, the most recent of which would be, "I will fire anyone who leaks.  Uh oh, I leaked myself.  I guess I don't have to fire me.  heh heh heh"

                THAT is likely why you got troll rated.  Flip flop is an asinine way of looking at things.  Not saying that you are asinine, or an ass.  Just that you have been sold a bit of goods that you might want to apply across the realm of your own existence and experience in order to debunk.

                by jibsail on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:37:15 PM PDT

                •  Erm... this isn't directed to me, is it? n/t

                  by Matthew Gertz on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:07:02 PM PDT

                  •  Maybe a bug...belongs down below.

                    It explained the rating it was referring to perfectly though.

                    by MH in PA on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:50:28 PM PDT

                  •  No, a bug..

                    what weird is that it wasn't up here earlier.  it was where it belonged.

                    weird.

                    by jibsail on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:35:59 PM PDT

        •  Amen to that

          Candidates seem to do best in two situations

          1. All they say is the memorized points, and never vary from them no matter what the question.

          2. They say what they feel, trying to be tactful, but above all, being clear and strong in what they said, and NOT trying to condition it so that they don't piss anybody off.

          IOW, either they stick to the script, or they speak from the heart, with passion when called for.

          Our guys are smart, it's really hard for them to stick to a script, especially if they don't really believe it. They need to stop doing that, and stick to speaking from their gut.

          Yes, they will piss some people off. But not as many as you suspect. And for God's sake, if they don't know something, or haven't heard of something, just f***ing say so. Nobody expects them to know everything.

          by mmacdDE on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:31:31 PM PDT

      •  Shrum is not the only advisor

        Google "Steve Elmendorf Jack Oliver".

        If I've misspelled Elmendorf's name, I'm sure you can find him by looking up Oliver's business partners.

        Oliver was Abramoff's bag man to the GOP in Congress.

        Elmendorf was an advisor on the Kerry campaign.  Advised against responding to the Swift Boating.  He is highly regarded....by the Dem big money donors....

        by Taylor26 on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:34:35 AM PDT

        •  This really tells the tale...

          ...doesn't it? Whose side is who on? This could almost be called "infiltration."

          by nehark on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:22:15 AM PDT

      •  Our candidate in 08 better know this, too.

        by irate on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:44:45 AM PDT

        •  So like horse races. We bet the jockey

          instead of the horse.

          by dkmich on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:19:39 AM PDT

          •  Some races I bet on the size of the spurs.,,,

            and the jockey's willingness to apply them forcefully.

            by irate on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:50:45 PM PDT

      •  it's the candidate

        The candidate picks who to hire, who to fire, and who to listen to.  Advisors are merely convenient whipping boys.

        by Matt Stoller on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:56:28 AM PDT

        •  but big money donors dictate the consultant hires

          C'mon Matt, you know that to be taken seriously by the big money donors as a candidate, especially in the Presidential stakes, you need to have the Right Advisors on board.

          It's what keeps losers like Shrum and Elmendorf being rehired over and over.

          by Taylor26 on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:42:09 AM PDT

          •  not really

            The candidate makes choices, and while there are constraints, the choice of who to hire and who to listen to is up to the candidate.

            by Matt Stoller on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:47:50 AM PDT

            •  Matt, that simply isn't accurate...

              while I agree that the Captain is responsible for the ship going down, it simply isn't accurate to say that he got good advice, or that, like a ship's captain, the guy apying for the boat and the crew, doesn't have any say in the matter.

              It's just not accurate.

              Furthermore,  a campaign is a bubble, and when your news is getting reported through the filter that was and is the corporate whore media, well, that had a huge impact on the election.

              Matt, I admire your work tremendously, but I disagree on this point.  It is simply not an accurate or fully fleashed out view of how a presidential campaign works.

              by jibsail on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:45:05 PM PDT

              •  stop mischaracterizing what i wrote

                I didn't say he got good advice.  I said he chose who he wanted to listen to.

                by Matt Stoller on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:48:55 PM PDT

            •  So for example what about Feingold's advisor?

              I forgot where I read this recently, maybe it was an excerpt from CTG....  Feingold was a dark horse candidate when he first won in Wisconsin, with a lot of help from his non-DC-insider campaign advisor and the ads they ran.....but he has since been pressured to drop that guy and use a DC insider in order to get support from the DC war chests....

              The whole system stinks, and there is no correction mechanism.....  Serially incompetent consultants just shrug and move on to the next gig......

              by Taylor26 on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:53:59 PM PDT

          •  The big money donors follow the polls

            and they'll give money to whoever they think the winner is going to be.

            They don't care if you have a cat as your advisor, as long as they think you'll win.

            by mmacdDE on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:34:06 PM PDT

            •  true about some

              Not all donors follow the polls.  And the polls are usually pretty ambiguous.

              by Matt Stoller on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:49:29 PM PDT

      •  He is not the Cubs

        i think he is more the Devil Rays of  Poltics...

        by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:35:50 AM PDT

      •  Good point: Schrum sux

        Schrum is death to anyone who hires that guy.

        by formernadervoter on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:01:33 PM PDT

      •  It's his name, silly

        Bob.......Shrum

        Just wreaks of victory doesn't it???!!

        ....and that FACE and TIE!!!

        

        Both attributes of a counselor to power-brokers!

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:09:17 PM PDT

    •  It won't be three in a row.

      But. But. As much as I appreciate Kerry's newfound balls, it MUST be communicated to him that this cannot be out of any Presidential aspirations he might have. Ditto Feingold. Ditto Dean. Ditto Hillary. No, make that a double for her -- she might as well be Mrs. Lieberman.

      We can't afford to front damaged or radical goods for the White House, no matter how much we might like what they're saying. They need to keep up the work, but they serve best as the front guard for someone who's already been elected once, and who has completely reinvented himself to be even better.

      by episty on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:58:32 AM PDT

      •  For someone who is supposedly doing this out of

        Presidential aspirations he's sure giving a lot of his money away to other Dems instead of hoarding it like some folks.
        http://www.dynamicdems.com/...

        Senator John Kerry's Keeping America's Promise PAC - $$$ for 2006 Dems!

        Here's what KAP http://www.keepingamericaspromise.org/ earned in 2005 and what is being done with the money. See who is putting their money where their mouth is

        The following information is from Bloomberg.com.
        http://www.bloomberg.com/...

        In reference to 2005's top 25 PACs...

        "Hagel, 59, donated 13 percent of the money he raised last year to federal candidates and committees, topping Clinton's 8.3 percent. Only Kerry, 62, the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2004, beat the average among the 25. Kerry's Keeping America's Promise PAC gave away 29 percent of the $2.2 million he raised last year to federal candidates and committees, his filing shows."

        ``He thinks that it's the most important thing that he can do after the 2004 elections,'' said Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for Kerry's PAC."

        And that was just how much he gave in 2005! This is the big year for Democrats. The money Kerry brings in for Dems this year could make the difference in quite a few campiagns. He's fighting as hard as he can FOR 2006.

        Not only that, Senator Kerry raised over 300k for the fighting Dems in about 48 hours.

        Sure, I'd love to see him run in 2008, but that's not as important as having a country left by 2008. We have to work for 2006 to take back Congress. Hell if we can't even get a freaking bill passed with all this Republican obstructionism, how the Hell does anyone expect to get an impeachment going?

        AFTER we TAKE BACK CONGRESS in NOVEMBER, HOWEVER...

        Then we can pretty much call the shots. I WANT to see that. I WANT to see BUSH sitting there on his throne knowing that he's absolutely frigging POWERLESS.  

        by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:49:04 AM PDT

        •  But

          he won't know it.  He's not capable of knowing it.  He may catch on when he's on trial in the Hague.  Or he may not.  It will be like Saddam, and Milosevic.

          by papercut on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:14:43 PM PDT

          •  He'll catch on

            when Cheney is indicted, Rove is in jail, and the moving van is sitting outside the White House.

            by mmacdDE on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:35:52 PM PDT

        •  Thanks for compiling that information...

          it really puts things in perspective. I see a lot of evidence that Kerry is taking a very proactive stance on tipping the balance, and getting Dems back in power.   I like this!

          by AlienCode on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:49:58 PM PDT

      •  Like Ensign and Thune?

        Aren't we lucky the Republicans ran damaged merchandise for the Senate like Ensign in 2000 (who lost in 1998) and Thune in 2004 (who lost in 2002)?

        by curtadams on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:51:56 AM PDT

      •  uh...

        i think that is what the primaries are for. It's not what you think that matters, it's what the overall-clad farmers in Iowa think.

        by SeanF on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:26:10 AM PDT

        •  Nah. . .

          It's what the folks toiling in the cubicles at the insurance companies in Des Moines think, or what the well-educated folk of Iowa City think, or the folks at the meat-packing plants in Dubuque think.

          According to the Iowa Data Center, there are only about 120,000 "farm operators" in Iowa, and 1/3 of those do not list farming as their principal occupation. The population of Iowa is close to 3 million people, of whom 61% live in "urban" areas. Even considering those under 18, and those whose work may be farm-related, the "farm vote" is not what it once was.

          by Robespierrette on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:51:20 PM PDT

          •  dammit man!

            let me alone with my rage against Iowa!! =)

            ...actually that was a very informative post. thx for the info.

            by SeanF on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:44:54 PM PDT

          •  Most Iowa farmers vote Republican

            The key voting blocs in the Iowa Democratic caucuses are the unions, the anti-war activists, and the other committed party members, few of whom are farmers.

            by sam3am on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:04:18 PM PDT

        •  'overall clad farmers'

          Generalize about the Midwest much?

          Just a hint: painting entire states/regions with broad brushstrokes is generally a way to make them resent you.  

          by A Patriot for Kerry on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:24:45 PM PDT

          •  whatever

            guess i'm not too worried about the feelings and accurate portrayals of iowans.

            by SeanF on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 03:17:06 PM PDT

            •  Obviously not

              Have fun winning elections with only coastal liberal enclave states, then.  Oh wait.  That isn't possible.

              by A Patriot for Kerry on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 09:17:05 PM PDT

      •  Mrs. Hillary Lieberman

        That is quite funny.  

        by Do Tell on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:54:09 AM PDT

      •  Bears repeating

        We can't afford to front damaged or radical goods for the White House, no matter how much we might like what they're saying. They need to keep up the work, but they serve best as the front guard for someone who's already been elected once, and who has completely reinvented himself to be even better.

        ------------------

        How true, the message may sound good, but I think that their past is more important than today's sound bites.  They have gotten awfully bold AFTER Bush's ship is sinking and the rats are swimming away.  

        Measure them by their total packages, not by soundbites that are conveniently delivered.

        How I really feel is that our party has been run into the ground by weanies for years and I am not about to let a few harsh words of criticisms of Bush sway me now.  

        The election in 2008 will be defined by 2006.  Let's see how these retreads perform this fall.  

        by Do Tell on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:00:17 PM PDT

      •  Al Gore has actually been elected 3 times

        On a national level. Twice as VP, once as President. Oh, how I wish he would run.

        by AWhitneyBrown on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:46:29 PM PDT

    •  I think it is because they were too insulated

      and getting very bad advice. I think both have experienced a liberation to some extent--Al Gore even more so than Kerry. A self-possessed man who is intelligent, rational, wise and passionate is a very attracting.

      by lecsmith on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:40:04 AM PDT

    •  Thrice, in a sense

      We all love Jimmy Carter, too, and (as someone who was there & guilty in 1980) we turned our backs on him at the time of his re-election.

      by pat208 on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:56:23 AM PDT

      •  I walked the most dangerous precinct