Kerry’s Was Harsher by Far

[kerrygoddess]

Kerry’s Was Harsher by Far
September 19th, 2005

Whatever the fascination with the MSM today was with the fact that Kerry and Edwards both gave speeches yesterday assailing Bush, is beyond me. Instead of reporters reporting on each of the stories, it seemed as though there was a race to team them up again, or to pit them against each other. No need to do either, in my opinion. They are each making their own mark in their own ways, and saying things that Americans long to hear.

The WaPo has an interesting assessment of both speeches yesterday, noting that “Kerry’s was harsher by far”. Here’s a couple of quips:


President Bush came under withering criticism for his handling of Hurricane Katrina yesterday, with Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) charging that the storm exposed the administration’s incompetence and ideological blinders and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) asserting that even in its response, the administration backs policies that support the privileged over the working poor.

Of the speeches delivered yesterday by the Democrats’ 2004 ticket, Kerry’s was harsher by far, and it drew a sharp rebuttal from the Republican National Committee’s Tracey Schmitt.

Dan Balz of the WaPo notes that Kerry and Edwards speeches “followed pointed comments along the same lines by former president Bill Clinton, who criticized the administration’s response to the storm Sunday” on ABC’s “This Week.” Was Balz inferring that Kerry and Edwards were following Clintons lead? Hardly…

CBS News Senior Political Editor Dotty Lynch points out that “while at first blush these speeches might appear to be a coordinated Democratic attack on the President, the former running mates and their staffs engaged in a bit of jockeying for attention to their remarks.”

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=612

[cornermouse]

1. No need to compare, but....

Yeah right. And no I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for what? 2 years and 3 months before the next primary.

[kerrygoddess]

3. All in all it was a very comparison of both speeches

and their different approaches. On a whole, the WaPo writer noted he felt Kerry's speech was harsher, covering more ground. I make no bones about being a Kerry supporter, so I post news about Kerry.

I read both speeches. Loved them both. Admire both men. I personally don't get why the media lumped both of their efforts yesterday together and then the WaPo writer insinuated they were each following Clintons lead. Perhaps you didn't catch that and it appears you missed the point.

NO ASKED WHO ANYONE WOULD VOTE FOR.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

11. you're missing the point

which is that the media turned it into a "2008" thing.

First line in the CNN report mentions that Kerry and Edwards are potential candidates. The subtext is "politics as usual" This allows the MSM, following the RW script, to ignore or minimize what Kerry or Edwards said.

[win_in_06]

15. Since it has been turned into a campaign thing

will we now hear versions from Hillary, Biden, Gen Clark, et al?

[LittleClarkie]

16. Clark's been there, done that

Hillary's quiet. Biden not quiet enough most days, but not talking like Dean or Clark or Kerry or Edwards.

These are former candidates. They are also prominent Dems. They are the answer to "Where are the Dems."

Don't let the media spin the Dem's response as 2008 posturing.

[win_in_06]

19. I see your point, but Biden is also a former candidate.

[LittleClarkie]

14. Point being: fuck 2008 and the horse it rode in on

It's way to fucking early. I'm happy with both these men speaking out, and Dean, and Clark, and Bill, and anyone else who wants to join in. Does that mean I'll vote for one over the other if they were "harsher"?

No.

I refuse to look at this stuff through a "who's running in 2008" filter. It distorts reality.

[cornermouse]

17. Actually, minus the...uh...language, I would have to agree with you.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Heh. Daddy was a sailor.

Sorry 'bout that.

[ladylibertee]

2. I know where you're coming from. I saw that too.

[stillcool]

5. a perfect example...

of how difficult it is to have your voice heard if there is a D after your name. I am sick to death of petty jabs, and nonsensical jibberish being spouted any time his name comes up. I totally appreciate when any dem speaks out, and someone here broadcasts it. And pointing out how the corporate press chooses to selectively report can not be highlighted enough....so many here don't seem to get it.

[kerrygoddess]

6. I hear you. N/T

[mikelewis]

7. Kerry/Edwards is the face of opposition, they represent the Dem Party

The sheeple are impressionistic and the only way to talk to them is by imagery. While we read every line of the speeches, the sheep who purchase the newspapers and drool in front of Fox and CNN only get the image of Kerry and Edwards battling Bush again. It's a smart way to propagandize the opposition. I news-googled {new verb?} "Kerry" "Edwards" "Bush" and though there was only a few variations of the story, the headline Kerry/Edwards was by far the most prevalent. By grouping their speeches together the MSM is effectively writing their statements off as death throws from the 2004 campaign. They can marginalize their statements by subtly reminding the reader that this is coming from a "losing" campaign.

[3waygeek]

8. Kerry may have been harsher

than Edwards, but today's Rude Pundit (Caution: rather graphic language, NSFW) compares Kerry's speech to the Big Dog's appearance on Stephanopoulos last Sunday. Once again, Bill shows us how it's done.

[NightOwwl]

9. Me lovee the Rude Pundit...

graphic language and all!

[LittleClarkie]

10. I don't mind comparisons

it was the inference by some that Kerry copycatted Clinton somehow that got me. Considering how fast one followed the other, I don't think Kerry could write a speech that fast. Plus he was scheduled to give that speech well in advance.

God forbid our Dems should be speaking with one voice for a change. Nah, must be a competition.

Bah.

[kerrygoddess]

12. That inference got me too...

Glad I found that statement from CBS. Must go email it to Dan Balz of the WaPo, I forgot to last night!

[LittleClarkie]

13. I remember that name from before. Apparently he's rather right wing

and comes up with somewhat snarky stuff quite often.

[blm]

18. Bill got to where he was with a great deal of help from Kerry.

Most people just don't realize it.

Bush1 would never have lost in 92 except for the constant flow of headlines over the last two years that revealed just how how much he was involved in IranContra, BCCI and later, Iraqgate. He could have survived a downturn in the economy, but people lost trust in his integrity.

Of course, that was when most of the press was a different animal... fair and balanced, for real.

Clinton spent most of the last 3 years saying how much he supported Bush and trusted him. He and his people at the DNC told MacAuliffe not to bash Bush at the convention, because the American people don't want to hear it. He also told Kerry to support state amendments discriminating against gays.

But, by far, the biggest screw up reClinton, is that he wouldn't allow the BCCI investigation to be reopened when he took office.

And comparing Clinton on a national tv INTERVIEW show and Kerry at a scheduled policy speech is hardly appropriate.

[blm]

20. Media has to find any other angle than the actual ones - must protect Bush

in his time of need.

I know...let's accuse Kerry and Edwards of just speaking out against Bush as political opportunists.

[second edition]

21. Exactly right! The media needs to be called out on this.

Every time any politician says anything critical of this administration, they play up the politics as usual angle. Really, Dems need to start countering this nonsense with a smack down comment. Can't a Democratic politician say anything critical and express outrage and concern for our country without the 2008 race or democratic motives being brought up?