On the MSM front ---

[Mass]

Two interesting piece of information, both of them not that meaningfull, but still:

A new Gallup Poll
http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm : Kerry 8 % (still in the top 5) == This by itself is interesting. Even with all the silence concerning him after very bad press for a while, Kerry still keeps moer than 5 % of people who would vote for him in a primary. Nobody should discount that: Kerry has a base in the party who will follow him whatever happens.

http://nationaljournal.com/racerankings/wh08/

NJ rankings: Not so good, but, just as last week, NJ says clearly that the ranking is partly because Kerry is out of the media and has not declared. He also recognizes that Kerry was right on Iraq.

[wisteria]

1. I am surprised at the Gallop ratings. The NJ, don't bother me.

As you said, he has done very little and has purposely kept a low profile, so at least he still has devotees willing to stick with him.

[Mass]

2. New ABC-Post poll - Interesting numbers.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/postabc_poll_clinton_giuliani.html

.
Clinton took 41 percent in a hypothetical primary field against 12 other Democrats, far ahead of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) at 17 percent, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C) at 11 percent and former Vice President Al Gore at 10 percent. The party's 2004 nominee -- Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) -- received 8 percent support. No other candidate crested three percent.
...

Interesting numbers, which confirm that Kerry has a real base (at this point, only people solidly for Kerry will choose him). Also, these numbers are leaned votes, which explains why Hillary is so much ahead. People who do not have an opinion tend to lean where the wind goes, at this stage of the game. It is also interesting that neither Obama nor Edwards have benefited of his announcement.

At this stage, while Hillary is clearly the front runner, these polls show that the anti-Hillary is clearly not determined.

NET LEANED VOTE:

1/19/07 12/11/06
Hillary Clinton 41 39
Barack Obama 17 17
John Edwards 11 12
Al Gore 10 10
John Kerry 8 7
Joe Biden 3 2
Wesley Clark 1 1
Bill Richardson 1 2
Dennis Kucinich 1 NA
Chris Dodd * *
Mike Gravel * NA
Tom Vilsack * 1
Other (vol.) 1 *
None of these (vol.) 2 2
Would not vote (vol.) * 1
Evan Bayh NA 1
No opinion 3 4

[whometense]

3. Also interesting that Kerry's up a bit. n/t

[karynnj]

4. Mass - thank you for posting these

I agree this shows a solid Kerry base. Given that all pollsters know people try to chose the "right" answer, it takes courage to say Kerry.

I would be more concerned with the last one if I were Edwards. His numbers did not go up in this poll (12 to 11) and the time period between the polls includes splashy announcement and about 3 weeks of the roll out. This is amazing as he's gotten great press - maybe people have memories of where he was 3 years ago.

[sandnsea]

7. OMG, 9 people who suck

Are you guys seeing this???

Hillary, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Vilsack, Gravel, Kucinich, Edwards, Obama.

Obama may be good, Dodd is okay and I can live with Edwards.

But really, look at this mess. My stomach is sinking, this is not much of a field.

[whometense]

5. Check this out -

from Boston commentator Jon Keller, no less, not a Kerry fan in any way.

http://cbs4boston.com/kellerblog/local_blogentry_017131004.html

The Case For Kerry

Jan 17, 2007 1:07 pm



From a just-released interview our junior senator did with Details Magazine:

"John McCain ran and lost, and he's trying again. Ronald Reagan ran four times. Richard Nixon lost the presidency, then ran for governor, lost the governorship, and then six years later, he was president. For six months in '03, everything I read said I was dead. I felt I could win and would win, and I won the nomination. And I came within a hair of beating a wartime president with a pretty decent economy and a 50 percent approval rating. I think that's a campaign to be proud of, not defensive about."

Other than the misplaced pride in his too-often-disingenuous, error-prone campaign, I think Kerry's analysis is right on, as I've said here earlier. And I repeat my previous warning to gambling-prone readers: do not wager heavily on Kerry sitting it out.

[politicasista]

6. If he runs, hopefully,

he will have a better, stronger campaign manager, as well as a strong PR. They are going to have to fight that perception that he is "error-prone." Not to say that the campaign didn't make mistakes, it just that some could have been prevented early on.

[JI7]

8. i think the biggest mistake was not getting his record out there

i still have a problem with those who say it was about not responding to attacks. Republicans continously attack . do they want the candidate to spend the entire election cycle responding to every attack ? that would be stupid and just make the candidate look defensive. better would be if the party would just call out the Republicans on their tactics and help get the message out.

i do agree with you about how Kerry would have to fight certain perceptions about him if he does decide to run. even if he doesn't decide to run it would be good to do it. but the way to do it is more in getting out your messege and record rather than responding to every little thing.

he was able to do this with the primary attacks on him as being pro war and voting for the war. he got out his anti war record. and in the end he asked the people if they really think he supported the war and if they do believe that they shouldn't vote for him. of course most people didn't believe he supported it (even if they disagreed with the vote). in the end they thought the positives of his record outweighed anything negative.

Harold Ford did this and it worked for him. i know he lost but the election was very close and the fact that an african american Democrat nearly won in a VERY conservative state, a state so conservative the vp candidate whose home state is it lost it just a few years back speaks well of him. Ford did this by calling out the Republicans on the race attacks. he didn't get tangled in explaining the playboy and girls stuff. of course the racists in the state were able to win in the end. but the closeness of the election showed they aren't as powerful as they were a few years earlier.

[karynnj]

9. He really did try to get his record out

His speechs referenced his record - but they were not heard - other than short sound bites. In looking back, I think the think that made it the hardest was that he was the first challanger who got only 3 hours of network coverage of the convention. The coverage on cable had also changed very significantly in the last decade. I remember them just covering the convention - speaking in the short breaks only. In 2004, they had their mostly Republican panels. (To demonstrate the bias, in the debates - they once included Ginsberg, the Bush lawyer who was also the SBVT lawyer.)

The lead up to the convention was always a time for soft stories on the candidate, his wife, warm stories about his life. It was respect for someone who won the nod of one of the two major parties - a major accomplishment. There was very little of that before Kerry's convention. (in fact 2 July weeks were mostly Clinton's book.)

Had Kerry seen this coming, the only thing I can think of was to cut Clinton's time or more him out of the network TV hour and put in a very good biography that would have covered real highlights of his life, introduced Teresa and his their extended family and shown something of the kind of people he and Teresa are. (I criticize Clinton often - doing this is not knocking Clinton, but with 3 hours triage is necessary - and Kerry's biography was far more important than a Clinton speech.

[JI7]

11. he got it out himself whenever he spoke, but i'm thinking more TV ads

things that would echo the things he was speaking about in his speeches. this is of course a big fault of Terry McAuliffe. the RNC made ads that reflected what Bush was saying. there was a consistency in getting out their message. in addition the other party members would do the same.

in Kerry's case many Dems went on TV and rather than just give Kerry's message and support him they would analyze the campaign.

[ray of light]

10. does it allow letters to the editor?

Because even if one wants to claim his campaign was error-prone, let us discuss how it was innovative too. It had the first blog. It had a working forum. It had live people from around the country working online and then off-line to make things happen. It had call in numbers online that anyone around the world can make calls on his behalf that move-on immitates right now.

It also had a long bus/road tour because it had to go directly TO the people since the media is such liars.

So was there things that was bad but there was many many good things too.

[karynnj]

12. That's true - and he doesn't get the credit for all that

Dean is always given credit for using the internet - but in the primaries, the people who looked for information on line ended up choosing Kerry. Dean was the first to really use the web to raise money, but though Kerry was late to start using the internet - that blog was amazing.

I know I would still have been thrilled with the chice of Kerry as the nominee, but I would not have been as convinced that he was really really incredible without the blog stories - that shows a very different man than the MSM - and the links to video coverage and TV time schedules. (In fact, we need a new rule for the NYT: A guy who seemed to have at least 3 or 4 non-related God kids is NOT a social loner. This is not an honor given lightly.)

[blm]

17. See now, karyn, I would have guessed that folks like you

and your uber-cool spouse, had a lengthy record of being on top of the issues throughout the last 30 years. You certainly come off now as completely savvy of the bigger picture. You must be VERY good at playing catch up.

[karynnj]

20. Thanks for the compliment for me and spouse

Like most of our generation, we remembered the brilliant, poised, eloquent man who has the courage to speak truth to the to that point moost paranoid administration in our history.

In the following years, I remember hearing that he was elected to the Senate. I remember seeing him on talk shows where he was right and McCain was wrong. But I had no real strong impression otherwise.

I remembered Iran/Contra and BCCI but, though I read the NYT religiously through that time period, didn't connect either to Kerry. So, in 2004, I had a vague but very positive view of him - and would not have been able to pick him out in the Senate. Dean and Kerry were the only two I liked and after reading an exerpt of Tour of Duty, it was Kerry. (not for the heroics - I skipped the battle parts the first time - but the clues that showed the kind, moral, thoughtful and brilliant man he was. I already liked the agenda.)

[whometense]

14. You can email him

here: [e-mail]

[ProSense]

13. Awesome find.

I'm getting more and more hopeful, then there is Kennedy's comment.


Run John, Run!

[whometense]

15. great find, yourself!

;-)

Oh, Teddy...

[Inuca]

16. You guys did not see Teddy on MTP?

I was going to post about it, but was busy, and thought it would be redundant. I do not remember exactly what he said, but it sounded much better, optimistic, friendly, and just plain nice than the "I will endorse him if he runs" quote in the link. Also, on the subject of MTP, did anyone see McCain? Any comments? He seemed unusually and bizarrely zombie-like to me. And his answers were all over the map, I do not remember exactly, I was half-asleep I must confess, but there was at least one question (about Hillary? I am not sure...) where his answer had NOTHING to do with the questions, and not like he was trying to avoid answering, more like he misunderstood the question. Maybe it was just me... I don't know... I just looked weird.

[wisteria]

18. mccain looked depressed- really and he was putting me to sleep. n/t

[karynnj]

21. He really did

he sounded flat and uncertain. He did do his little thing that Iraq was more important than politics. My guess is he may be realizing that he could have been wrong.

If it weren't for the kicks right after the election, the lies that make him look good at Kerry's expense and the completely disgusting attack on Kerry over the joke, I could believe that he did what he did in 2004 to help Bush because he knew Kerry would change the course.

[ProSense]

19. I missed it, but thanks for the recap! n/t

[whometense]

22. Here's what James Wolcott had to say -

his opinion was identical to yours! ;-)

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2007/01/what_a_contrast.html

A Tale of Two Pale Males

What a contrast on this Sunday's Press the Meat.* First, John McCain, that maverick twinkle in his nowhere to be spied as he monotoned through the interview as if depressed, defeated, and sedated; he seemed to round the answers off of every he answer he gave, as if not wanting to be too emphatic or specific--at this he succeeded and, in succeeding, failed. Even I, no McCain fan, was shocked at how droney he looked and sounded. If I were a McCain supporter, I would have been even more taken aback, and worried about how much gas he has left in his engine. (Although he wasn't too fatigued that he couldn't trot out that if-Americans-were-truly-against-the-war-Lieberman-wouldn't-have-been-reelected sophism again with full frontal aplomb. He and Lieberman seem to be on the verge of forming their own lonely hearts club.)

Then, after this zombie seance, Ted Kennedy, looking and sounding clear, vigorous, and vibrant with conviction. Barely a day goes by on Imus and the right blogosphere where Ted Kennedy isn't mocked as a boozed-out, unkempt buffoon with his shirt-tails untucked and his hands fumbling for a bottle or a babe, or both; but the caricature is out of date and dumb. In the last few years Kennedy has mustered a passion and dignity that have breathed second wind into his senatorial life and done himself and his party honor. He also had the conscience and prescience to vote against the Iraq war, voting the courage of his convictions rather than the political calculus. Discussing the "surge" and related issues, Kennedy was fully engaged, where McCain seemed mummified. Kennedy also asked the most salient question: Why should we give Bush, whose administration has made blunder after blunder after blunder in Iraq, the benefit of the doubt this time?

Memo to presidential candidates: If you're going to run with laments for lost "civility," don't bother running. You'll lose. And you'll lose looking like cardboard left out in the rain. Look at how Barack Obama is already getting the "Osama"/madrassah treatment, or Dick Morris's cheeseball scheme to Swift Boat Hillary, and then tell me these gentle entreaties are going to get anywhere. The Beltway establishment considers Lieberman the model of civility, which is really all you need to know.

video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10005066/

[MBS]

23. great article!

Wolcott's right on the money! thanks for calling this to our attention

[Inuca]

24. Hey, I feel flattered :-)

It was really quite striking how zombie-like he looked and sounded. I liked the "lonely hearts club" part :-). I am not sure why, but sometimes I feel sorry for Lieberman, maybe because I think he really believes in what he says about the Iraq issue, and it's sad to see somebody so wrong. Anyway... unfortunately neither Gore nor Kerry had the best choices for VP. I wonder whether something potentially good may come from the horrible Bush-Cheney partnership, namely an enhanced role for the VP, it may be a good thing IMHO when other people are involved.