Frank Rich NYT, mentions JK...

[YvonneCa]

...in this article about Obama's trip:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

[Mass]

1. Well, I would have preferred him not to mention Pickens and to mention Kerry as being one

of the precursors on the positions the Democratic Party is taking these days. This article distresses me even more.

[YvonneCa]

2. So would ...

...I. I think he tells only the most recent part of this story. But, maybe, telling all would undermine Obama...and I wouldn't want to do that.

[Mass]

3. What, saying that Democrats have a line of thought and that each Democratic candidate

inherits from the past should be a good thing. I am tired of seeing articles that mention Pickens and then mention Kerry because of the Swift Boats, but do not mention the irony that Kerry has been fighting for many years for what Pickens says he is fighting nowadays.

Why would that hurt Obama? (and the same goes for Boxer, Biden, and many other ones. Obama did not come in a vacuum. He is a very talented man, but, listening to his interview this morning on NBC, I heard things that are just standard Democratic policy and it is a good thing).

[ray of light]

4. I agree w/ you Mass. We should write them and tell them that.

[YvonneCa]

5. I agree with everything...

...you said here. And I am also tired of Kerry not getting credit for what he does. I agree Obama didn't come in a vacuum. I also think it SHOULDN'T hurt Obama...in a fair world. But we don't live in a fair world.

As we here observe...regularly...Kerry is not treated fairly. Ever...in my opinion. Linking the two SHOULDN'T hurt Obama, but...JMHO...the media would make sure it did. I think that's wrong...but I also think it would happen.

[Mass]

6. But we are hurting the Democratic Party this way. Each time we have a new candidate,

we behave like if he had to reinvent everything. By your standard, Kerry could as well drop out of politics, as politics is in part public relations. Reporters not crediting Kerry hurts Kerry. Reporters not crediting Boxer or Biden hurt them. And we not only need a president, but we need a strong Democratic Congress with people who have shown their strength. Frankly, this idea that Kerry is going to hurt Obama is something I disagree strongly. If Obama is hurt because some reporters credit Kerry for being a precursor on a question, it just means that Obama is a weak candidate, which I do not believe either.

Once again, here I am not suggesting that Obama gives props to Kerry or anybody else for each policy somebody has supported before him. That would be stupid. I am just pointing out that this article is part of the problem, not part of the solution. But this is the NYTimes, so I should not be surprised.

Rich has often been a Kerry basher anyway, so I guess I should not be surprised that he has no clue what Kerry has done, but all I suggested is that he missed a point here, to show the irony that Pickens is using Kerry's lines when 4 years ago, he was spending his money to destroy him.

[YvonneCa]

7. Yes, I agree that Rich missed...

...the point. I'm not defending the article....I agree with some, but also think there is falsehood by omission.

Two other thoughts ( :) I like that you guys here make me think ! )

1. I agree with all you say about the Democratic party embracing who we are. I've been saying that since...forever, but especially after 2000 and 2004. To quote Al Gore...Let it rip! I am, however, concerned about 'timing on the Kerry role' issue. It's fear, for me...that it just gives the media one more club to try to bring Obama down. They are out to use every club available...and that is not meant to diminish Obama's or our party's strength.

2. I think JK is different than Biden, or Boxer...or any other Democrat. Through NO FAULT of his own, he is always radioactive. I LOVE what he stands for. But there are haters out there that don't want that truth out there. They can fight the caricature...they have no chance against the real JK, and they know it. One of my greatest hopes is that we can destroy that caricature...soon, I hope. I just think we are safer (I know, it's fear :) ) if we elect Obama first, and enlist his help.

[Mass]

8. We probably will have to agree to disagree on that one, but it is not our call anyway.

(God, am I happy it is not mine) and I trust Obama and Kerry to do the right thing.

However, reading your post again, I am not sure what you do not want to do. I reread this thread and do not get it. He is a US senator and is going to take positions. He has been an effective surrogate for Obama on the issues he is the most involved with. He is campaigning for Senator. For the rest, it is the media's work and they will compare Obama and Kerry. Strangely, they will compare him either to say Obama does better than Kerry or that Obama does less well than Kerry. This will happen, independently of what Kerry will do. And some papers will give Kerry credit for what he did, some will not. So, I am totally lost on what you are talking about?

[YvonneCa]

9. It's okay, Mass...

...I think I was probably not very clear. (It's been a long day for me. :7 ) I re-read, too, and I think I agree with you on almost everything you said. I especially agree it's not our call...thank goodness! :) I also trust Kerry and Obama to handle things well.

[wisteria]

10. Iv agree with you Mass in regards to this "idea" that somehow Kerry hurts Obama.

That is only coming from a Republican perspective and one or two asinine blog sites. Some people seem to forget that Senator Kerry still is well respected her and abroad. And certainly his opinions are still very much sought after. Senator Kerry was and remains ahead of his time. Many of the things Senator Obama is saying now Senator Kerry has said in the past and the focus on diplomacy and a global view is certainly almost the identical view of Kerry's.

[MBS]

11. yes, I've been thinking about this a lot lately:

that "Senator Kerry was and remains ahead of his time", and has paid a price for his leadership in terms of shallow political popularity among some constituencies. But he wins in every other way.

[beachmom]

12. What's the problem with the article? Here is the Kerry mention:

But it’s not merely the foreign policy consensus that is shifting Obama-ward. The Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens has now joined another high-profile McCain supporter, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in knocking the McCain nostrum that America can drill its way out of its energy crisis. Mr. Pickens, who financed the Swift-boat campaign smearing John Kerry in 2004, was thought to be a sugar daddy for similar assaults against the Democrats this year. Instead, he is underwriting nonpartisan ads promoting wind power and speaks of how he would welcome Al Gore as energy czar if there’s an Obama administration.

Is it not factual? For me, all I require journalists to do is to state the fact that Pickens funded the SBVT. When they omit that fact, they haven't told the story. The fact that "we cannot drill our way out of this" is Kerry's line is simply not well known in Conventional Wisdom. We can talk about it, JK's staff can talk about it, and JK himself can talk about it. But other than that, this is NOT CW, so we shouldn't be surprised when it isn't mentioned. It's the same with the Iraq plan Obama is running on -- essentially Kerry's plan, with the same fine print in it that the K/F amendment had in it. The time frame is different (16 months vs. 1 year), but it is Kerry's concept, and basically nobody knows that fact. Considering Obama voted against the K/F amendment, I'm not exactly going to be trumpeting the background of Obama's Iraq plan to the world. But I bet you the RNC is combing through the record as we speak, and may even trot out Obama's no vote to the K/F amendment in an ad, especially with Obama calling it a "precipitous withdrawal", which it wasn't, Barack.

My point is this article is actually a positive article about Obama, something we saw too seldom for Kerry in '04. The Kerry mention was merely factual. I mean I talked to a friend of mine the other day who likes Gore better than Kerry; part of him not liking Kerry as much is that he has NO IDEA what Kerry has done. That Obama has been given a well thought out plan and just tons of help. BUT, part of it is kind of hush hush. We want Obama to forge out on his own, be his own man. So in exchange for possibly FINALLY winning back the presidency, we have to bite our tongue.

As was shown in MBS's post about the fundraiser, Kerry is actually not great at bragging about work he has done, and Teddy keeps telling him he's got to do it. (I don't think that was a joke; I think we got some truth there) If he bragged more, maybe the press would print more. But at what price? Would he be more like Schumer and less the Kerry we all know and love? That is an open question.

[Mass]

13. No particular opposition to the article, except I thought from the title

that there was something significant about Kerry, to find that this was the same mention about the SBVT (that reporters have been generally pretty good at mentionning, if anything because Pickens is not that well known to the general public).

The article is generally well written and I agree that with all you wrote otherwise.