We still have a BIG MSM problem

[beachmom]

I have news from the "real world", too, and it's not good like WEL's was. I had sent a few of my diaries to my mother so she could see what I was up to. She complimented my writing but then said she really liked "Michael". At first I didn't understand what she meant, but then I remembered: michael1104 who came into my diary as nothing less than a troll moaning about the '04 campaign (this was the "chickenshit" diary). He was one of the few negative people who chimed in, yet my Mom liked his opinion more than ALL the others who were positive.

Basically, she thinks John Kerry has no chance in hell of winning the general. She thinks he messed up talking about Iraq in '04. Even though her daughter is toiling on his behalf, she still feels this way, and had no problem telling me.

So I asked her: so you support Hillary? Oh no, she said. Then who? Obama.

Not to put down my Mom, but she is HIGHLY influenced by the MSM and the pundits who live there. What outlets are we talking about:

NBC Nightly News
sometimes one of the morning network shows
Time magazine (gee -- who was on the cover last week?)
The daily newspaper in her area
sometimes a little CNN

My Mom mentioned that JK has done "nothing". Well, how can you blame her when he is not present in these outlets. As far as MSMland is concerned, he actually doesn't even really exist. The only thing I will say is my Mom doesn't vote in the primaries; still, those on the sidelines DO have an influence on primary voters who are calculating their votes on a variety of factors.

Look -- I think John Kerry has come a LONG way on the blogs. But when is the MSM going to catch up? In the end, we can't force our way into their world the way we can in the blogosphere. And, if they continue to ignore and belittle him, I guess, I don't know how this is going to work.

Sorry for this less than optimistic post, but reality is what we need to continue to face, and this is one piece of it.

[cadmium]

1. For sure. check out dailyhowler archives

The MSM was never on our side--Gore or Kerry. dailyhowler.com is meticulously documenting subtle and not so subtle undermining of Gore in the 2000 election. He occassionally has pointed out them doing the same thing to Kerry.

[blm]

2. Media didn't tap Obama to discuss North Korea nukes - they turn to him for

feel good talk to disrupt the SERIOUS NEWS that needs detailed analysis.

Don't worry about this crap. The course of the campaign will show Kerry is still head and shoulders above the rest, and don't think people like Obama don't realize it. The series of debates pretty much puts their real savvy on display.

[Mass]

4. Obama is not Edwards - He is actually savvy on these issues.

Less than Kerry, but he is knowledgeable.

It is actually worrying that Kerry is stuck to policies issues. It pushes the meme that he should be a cabinet member or something like that, but that people do not like him.

[blm]

6. Media was able to do that in a vacuum where most didn't know Kerry. Now

he will have greater time to be known. There were never any appearances by Kerry in his career where he only discussed all the feel good, get to know me stuff that was made available to other politicians. He has always been too busy with SERIOUS MATTERS. PostKatrina and post 9-11, that "serious matters" stuff matters even more.

[ProSense]

12. It's all about dispelling the Media/GOP meme

The fact is Kerry is not that caricature:

Kerry's acceptance address was widely compared by media pundits to the progressive-era speeches of President Theodore Roosevelt, who advocated the social welfare programs characteristic of American liberalism, but also supported strengthening American military power and nationalistic patriotism. The speech, analysts added, attempted to portray the Democratic Party as masculine, even macho — much like the Republicans have historically presented themselves. Kerry stressed his qualities as a warrior and his ability to wage war when needed, a need to expand and modernize the armed forces, and a need to increase the size of special forces divisions. Alluding to the Bush administration's having fired Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki for demanding a peacekeeping plan before going to war in Iraq, Kerry also stressed the need to heed the counsel of generals.

Media analysts also characterized Kerry's speech as closer in style to a sitting president's State of the Union Address than those historically given by candidates at nominating conventions. Kerry listed specific proposals for programs and legislation, and offered a way to pay for them. He promised to train 40,000 new active duty troops, to quickly implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to cut the national deficit in half within four years, to cut middle class taxes while repealing the Bush administration's tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 per year, to stop privatization of Social Security, and to embrace science over religious dogma, especially with regards to stem cell research, which the Bush administration has constrained. He issued a promise to improve homeland security measures and quality of living: "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America." Although Kerry clarified the broad tenets of the Democratic platform, some liberals criticized the party's evasion of abortion rights and gay rights, while others found Kerry's plans too vague. On the whole, however, the address was well-received, and pundits found that Kerry's forceful delivery had made the normally dour candidate more appealing.

http://www.answers.com/topic/2004-democratic-national-convention

[beachmom]

15. But folks like my Mom don't hear you, Prosense

They ONLY hear the GOP meme MSM. We need to move that dinosaur in our direction with a story that will sell -- as in ad revenue.

[ProSense]

22. The same thing

could be said about any candidate if the MSM is their sole source of information. They could go either way, any number of Democrats or, more likely, Republican. Democrats will have to campaign hard, and a Democrat, including Kerry, can win!

[_dynamicdems]

53. Most people who vote don't care about politics. They don't want to

know any more than they absolutely have to. They get the Cliff Notes versions of the candidates from the MSM and go to the polls with that distorted perception of reality.

You are right to be concerned. Blogs are great at getting information out to a segment of the population but there are many more folks like your mother who still get their information from the MSM.

[Mass]

18. We agree, but the story has to be told, and it will not be told by a

handful of supporters on the blogs, as committed as they be.

HIS TEAM HAS TO TELL IT.

[ProSense]

21. That's campaigning

Kerry won the primaries because he campaigned his ass off. He will do the same again, and try to earn the voters support. This idea that he is incapable of this isn't based in fact!

[Mass]

23. They had a narrative in 03. They described who Kerry was.

They did it too late and it made the primary victory harder than it needed to be, but the narrative was there. You may agree or disagree it was an efficient narrative (somehow I think blm would agree something important was missing, but it was there).

[ProSense]

25. But it was a victory!

Fighting harder is exactly what Kerry is doing, and will continue to do!

[beachmom]

26. But it will be MUCH harder this time, because he lost in '04

You can't deny that. So he needs to be double, even triple, the candidate he was last time. And the MSM needs to come on board, which they did last time. The Economist did a positive opinion piece, The Atlantic had this nice long excerpt bout Kerry in Vietnam, there was BLANKET coverage of the guy who Kerry saved the life of in Iowa. After the MSM bored of Dean, they did a little dance for Edwards, but things were going in Kerry's direction BECAUSE he was doing so well in Iowa.

Then mistakes were made in the spring, the convention was good, more mistakes in August (MSM was terrible, of course), and then Kerry was absolutely fantastic in Sept. and October. He can't make ANY mistakes this time.

[ProSense]

28. The fact

that so many have gone on record to say Kerry was right, which is because he has been pounding the message, will make a harder fight easier. It will be harder, but he has the ammunition. That is the reality.

[blm]

People forget that McGreevey outing was August 12 which took up ALOT of oxygen

from Kerry and his campaign, so NONE of his actions for the next two weeks were covered as mistakes or as TRIUMPHS.

And we also forget how early summer was wall to wall coverage of Reagan and his death and media sainthood.

[beachmom]

39. Yes, there was indeed some bad luck thrown in as well.

I myself blew off the Swift Boat stuff. I was not on the blogs, and I found their charges baseless. I paid it no attention. The only people I knew who were excited about it were people who were going to vote for Bush anyway.

[karynnj]

47. Not to mention that after Reagan, we had 2 or so weeks

of coverage of Clinton's book - proving the media could find the Ls in the index. The MSM coverage was, of course, on what did he say about Monica - in case anyone had forgotten in the mere 6 or so years since impeachment.

[_dynamicdems]

55. Clinton's book. That annoyed the Hell out of me.

Nice timing. :sarcasm:

[ProSense]

8. Exactly!

The notion that the MSM is going to give any Democrat a free pass is driving this notion. Obama is intelligent, but inexperienced. His grasp of the issues is good, but he is not there yet. His inexperience shines through in some of his dealings with other Senators and on policy. This is not the time for inexperience.

[beachmom]

10. Agree with you 100%. But the sheep still want the prom king.

And the pundits are out there trying to sell it. The MSM are a BIG problem. I like some of Mass's ideas.

[ProSense]

14. Still, the MSM

will be a problem for every Democrat!

[beachmom]

17. Then we've lost already. GOP had a media problem some years

back, so they created their OWN media and then they influenced the OLD media. Blogs are great -- but how is that going to influence the old media?

[ProSense]

24. I don't know

ask Hey John, which had the opposite impact than intended, or Drudge with the latest Webb smear! The fact is blogs do have an impact, and the Media is paying attention, even if it is to smear Democrats. The opportunity then is to set the record straight and shine a light on the liars.

I don't buy it that we've already lost!

[beachmom]

29. I was saying that if you concede that the MSM will be anti-Democrat

or anti-Kerry, then you've already lost. We need to change THEM one story at a time. And so far, we haven't succeeded in regards to Kerry. And the question is: how do we change that?

Even the National Review wasn't buying that ridiculous smear of Webb about FICTION for crying out loud, so I'm not sure if that's a good example.

[cadmium]

31. yes

You have to call them and write them.

What Gil and I did during 2004 was put on Kerry gear and hang out in New Hampshire Dunkin Donuts and shopping centers and make small talk. Gil can be very charming. A lot of people seemed surprised that liberal democrats weren't stoned out sex-crazed Maoists.

[ProSense]

37. It's not conceding

it's acknowledging, which means they have to be countered, and they can be countered with responses, even if these have to come via letters, blogs and talking directly to people. The media may be biased, and they can amplify negative messages, but getting the truth out matters. Even after the media barrage of Swift Liars and WMD messages, they had to concede, but the damage was done. The good thing is that more people know the media is culpable for a lot of what happened in 2004, including giving the administration a free pass!

[_dynamicdems]

54. No matter their bias, they respond to viewer pressure. The market will

make the final determination. Big business might control the media, but big business won't be big for long if they lose their market. Viewers and readers need to speak out to change the MSM.

It's going to be an uphill battle, but it can be fought successfully with enough determination and a lot of facts. Today's "journalists" may be biased but the even bigger problem is that they are lazy and sloppy. They don't do their homework, so if something seems to fit their bias, they run with it. We need to hold them to account on the facts: keep hitting them hard whenever they slip up. This is probably going to be the biggest challenge going forward.

[wisteria]

44. Exactly! And if we regain some power in Washington, the media will

have to pay attention and give up more media time. Don't underestimate the power of the blogs, we are beginning to have an impact and influence people. I have noticed a lot of blog to MSM reporting going on. The MSM are tapping us as a news source now.

[karynnj]

48. The Webb stuff is extremely nasty

on RW radio now

[beachmom]

49. Webb wrote about what he saw in Vietnam and Thailand

It's within the framework of a novel, but it's based on the truth. McCain praised the book. This dog don't hunt.

[karynnj]

50. I know - Skinner did a great job debunking it

I had turned the radio on when I had a 1/2 trip for an error - so I was just saying that they were being as nasty as they could be. They seem to being a good job hitting back - the books did get excellent reviews.

[wisteria]

43. MSM is starting to pay attention to the blogs.

Some pundits were going back and forth on CNN the other night talking about what factors could impact the o8 race and the blogs were mentions as being an even bigger factor in o8 than they were in 04.

[Mass]

3. Of course we do - But it is a circular problem:

The media are focused on what can sell - They do not see Kerry as somebody who can sell, so they ignore him.

The Democratic strategists do not want Kerry, so they do not promote Kerry as somebody who can sell, while they promote Obama, Hillary, Edwards. (in fact, they do not even promote Bayh).

I continue to think that this is a problem that could be solved, but that demands a little more focus and discipline from his team. They need to define who Kerry is. They need to beat the stereotype.

They won in one aspect: security. They seem to have beaten the view of Kerry as an "opportunist" on that issue and most media are now promoting him as a "starch opponent of Bush on these issues".

However, this is not enough to promote the man. The media need to be provided the narrative they were never offered in 04. This is the strenght of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.
= Clinton would be the first "first lady" running for office.
= Obama would be the only African American with a chance to win the nomination, and he tells a compelling story about working together.
= We all know what Edwards's story is.

What is Kerry's story? For the media, it is the already-ran. Gore went over this by doing something else and then he was able to come back. At this point, Kerry is one out of 100 other senators. He does not have the support of the Senate Democratic leadership (if anything, this is the story that defines him: other democrats laugh at him). So, may be it is time to wake up and tell his own story, which is a compelling story, but that will not be told if HE DOES NOT TELL IT. A series of speeches on different policies does not do that, unfortunately. (and please, drop VietNam except as something that supports a larger story).

Sorry, I know I will irritate the hell out of many here, but this is what I have been feeling for a while, and, I think that, as long as the media will not be ready to talk about him and will not be offered material to do so, people like beachmom's mother or my mother in law will not believe Kerry is a believable candidate.

It is not that they do not like him. It is that he does not comeout as somebody who is over the rest. Unfair, but true.

[beachmom]

7. You're not being unfair -- I think WEL had a good idea about a story

of him being unfairly lied about, and that he was running to restore his honor, and the country's, too.

I 100% agree with you. We need a narrative. A BIG Hollywood epic style narrative. Something that sucks people in.

I think Senator Kerry has had an absolutely compelling life -- but, I do agree that there is more inside him than he has allowed to come out yet.

I also agree that Vietnam should be in the background, only being ever present in a subtle way. Webb here in Virginia was praised for two things: not allowing pictures of him and his son (who is in Iraq now) and not allowing descriptions of his heroism on his website, only a list of the medals he received. It's called being humble and people like that. I think Kerry is like that, too, but decisions were made that made that heroism too front and center in the last campaign, when they would have better served him in the background (this is completely separate from the SBVT who would have attacked no matter what). He needs to run on something MUCH bigger than being a vet.

This is a good discussion. It's still early yet, and you have some good advice.

[blm]

11. Story is ANTI-CORRUPTION and OPEN GOVERNMENT that respects citizens

He was hampered in that throughout 2004 because of so many DC people covering up for Clinton who couldn't utter the words IranContra, BCCI, or CIA drugrunning - all of which had tentacles into the 9-11 and global terrorism story.

[beachmom]

13. What's the name of the movie, though?

We need a story that Hollywood could make and the public would go to see.

[blm]

19. The LAST American Freedom Fighter

And that's the reality. Kerry is the last chance this nation has to get the BOOKS OPENED. Clinton and Obama would continue the coverup, as Obama is not the BRAVE soul needed to stand up to Bill Clinton and the Bushes.

[beachmom]

20. Not a bad working title

I'm with Mass about the team putting together a narrative. A story so compelling, the MSM will want to tell it.

This whole thread is making me more optimistic. Now if the people who make the decisions could think some more about it, we may have something here.

[ProSense]

27. Yes,

that similar to WEL's post the other day!

[Mass]

16. May be, but in this case, HE HAS TO TELL IT.

The pb is not that Kerry is not a compelling person. The pb is that the story that he is a compelling person is untold, and that he and his team do nothing to tell it.

Most people do not know the story, they did not hear it in 04 and they still do not hear it now.

My only question right now is whether Kerry and his team will come out after the election and tell this story (or another one - There are many very compelling aspects of the story), or whether they will continue to have speeches and editorials that the media do not report because they are not provided a story to tell.

[politicasista]

51. Exactly n/t

[ProSense]

5. Beachmom, no offense

to your Mom, but this runs counter to what we've seen and heard as JK goes around the country campaigning. Time is notorious for its GOP slant. The reality is JK is connecting with real people everyday. His positions on everything, including Iraq, are well-documented, and proved to be right! When campaigning begins, the MSM is going to most likely shill for the GOP, and all the Democratic candidates will have to make their case to voters. Kerry vast experience will shine through.

Your Mom supports Obama. My Mom likes Obama, but she, despite the fact that she gets her news solely from the MSM, still believes Kerry is the best man for the job!

[beachmom]

9. Um. I'm the only person I know who thinks John Kerry is the best

man for the job. That's a fact. So it's not just my Mom. And most people get their news from the MSM, so to not face this major problem is to lose before we even start.

[cadmium]

32. very true problem

and a lot of people don't pay that much attention.

Liberal media too --like AAR usually prefaces anything good they say about Kerry with "I don't think he should run for president"

Cenk Uygur on the Young Turks the other day said "I have to admit that John Kerry has been just kicking ass" of course his partner interrupted him with "but he shouldn't run for president"

I like Cenk even apologetically he at least acknowleged the reality that JK is kicking ass.--- There has been a virtual liberal media blackout on Kerry's excellent appearance on Stephanopolous.

There is a hippness and newness factor that he media doesn't see in him. I think if he just keeps doing what he is doing and we keep doing what we are doing hopefully they will catch on.

[karynnj]

33. I agree and I assume that Kerry is doing his best to lay the

ground work to change that perception. He is better positioned now than a year ago - even though there is no real evidence in the the polling numbers.

Consider that Gore's image changed radically twice since 2000. Gore, who was as staid a candidate as you can find in the last quarter century became first the angry, almost unstable bearded man (though he was actually always very stable and had much reason to be angry and beards are ok) than the elder statesman, wise man, liberal.

These changes in perception are LESS than the changes Kerry needs. Kerry does not need to be seen as a Clinton/Edwards glad handler - he IS likely more aproachable than either. The good thing is that what he absolutely doesn't need to change, he needs to be show as who he is. He needs to seen as someone who listens and cares. The media can use the excuse that they didn't know because Kerry was too modest to highlight every thing he's done for people. Blaming Kerry for this takes them off the hook, while making Kerry even more attractive - at least to midwesterners (and likely others) who would admire that reticience.

The biggest question is would what remains of the Democratic leaning media ever do this. My quess is that they might if Hillary really crumbles - taking with her their longed for restoration.

[karynnj]

30. I think that Mass and Beachmom have a point

Like you, I have heard a lot of Democrats admit that they loved Kerry - but many follow it immediately with the comment that he can't win. So, they are looking for an alternative. (There are others that claim he never got a message out in 2004, though they think he's a good guy. I meet very few people who are like the DKOS people.)

It is not contradictory to say that many Democrats see Kerry as someone who could be a good President and to say that apparently he couldn't get his story out. That is to some degree true - and it is not all his fault - remember all the time the media has always given in the past to positively define each party's candidate before their convention. 2004 was the first year it wasn't done that I can think of. (There was more on McGovern's biography in 1972!)

Whether it was Kerry's fault or not is irrelevant. Beachmom and Mass are correct that Kerry needs to find ways to get out more of who he is. It won't be easy as he has neither the media or the party - in fact it was amazing he got the nomination in 2004. He really is the inside "outsider". The Mr Smith goes to Washington who in 22 years didn't let DC corrupt him. The problem is the majority of the media people want to be in with the insiders - and those that favor outsiders rarely get that Kerry has never really been one - though he obviously had many chances to do so. He was born an insider.

He has been showing more of himself and I imagine that Teresa and his book and his daughter's book will both allow him to be seen more from the human side. (I assume the THK/JK book will be a serious policy book, but I assume they will do some PR on it that will show them together talking about things that are important to them.)

It still may come down almost to a process of elimination. Obama seems to have eclipsed Edwards. Hillary is still the front runner, but there are major cracks in her overwhelming support. There is still a lot of talk trying to push Gore to run - if he doesn't, Kerry is ultimately going to be looked at as the experienced alternative to Hillary. (Biden, Dodd and Daschle seemed to have excited no one - though some in the media have pushed Biden.)

I think the MSNBC politics site was right in their selection of heavyweights. The good thing was that Kerry's negatives were mostly misperceptions - which is good because they can be countered, bad because they may be hard to dispell - even though they are false.

Kerry does get a lot of credit for being intelligent and having been right on many issues. This is NOT nothing. He also has gotten a lot of reactions - that he was funnier, nicer, more articulate etc in each event he has done in the last 2 years - that all counter the CW in the same direction - while there has been NOTHING that confirms the CW. (This is why the Republicans (and other Democrats) misuse Davos)

[cadmium]

34. Thank god for video archives

There are a lot of good ones and building up more.

[karynnj]

38. Not to mention - they are more accesible than in 2004

youtube alone could have made a difference in 2004. Imagine all of us sending well constructed video to expose the lying SBVT to anyone who questioned JK.

[ProSense]

40. I understand the point, but

this is not 2004, and things are not the same. I agree it will not be easy, but the assumption that it will be easy for any other Democrat because of party support or media push is not necessarily true. Look at Hillary Clinton and the TBA conference, for example. The media and party labeled the discontent with her position as the "left." No amount of media push or party support has changed the public perception about her vague position on Iraq, which is why she was forced to try to clarify ("Where I stand on Iraq") her position. It still didn't help.

This is not 2004 and more people are paying attention, which IMO is responsible for many of the "Kerry was right" assessments. That and the fact that he has been the most consistent!

[karynnj]

45. It not being 2004 goes both ways

Kerry won 2004 - and not because the party or the media pushed him. He won because he convinced more people in the early primaries that any other candidate. If anything, his accomplishments, intelligence and his views are better known now than then.

Then his job was to convince people he could be President - which he did. He also convinced people that he was more likely to win than his competitors. I agree with you that Kerry's positions on almost everything are very very good for the active base. I also don't think the "Take back America" crowd was as fringe as the media wanted to claim - GV and Tay and others who were there would have a better view on this.

Kerry's biggest problem in the early primaries will be proving that he is as likely as anyone else to win. Initially this may be hard, as the newer people will have lower negatives. I don't think the "likability" thing is as much an issue here - in NH and Iowa, it is likely enough people know he is likable TO THEM - the issue is whether they think enough other people will like him enough that he can win.

The first real clue will be if the NH and Iowa people who voted for him in the primaries are with him in say mid to late 2007. A second clue would be if (in Iowa and NH) he is getting people who were for someone else in 2004 - who are for him now and how many previosly uninvolved people he gets.

People now are at best in the looking around phase. In the blogosphere, the people who hate him are down and the people giving him a second look is up. There are many people now who think he's an excellent statesman and a good man, but they are still mad at him for losing. There is also a natural tendancy to try to create a narritive - here on why he lost. That magnifies the small number of real errors. Had he won Ohio, the narrative would be that his excellent debates, positive convention and his self discipline in getting out the Vietnam facts but not getting into the gutter to fight liars helped him win a tough campaign.


In Iowa and NH, people are like flirting with all the candidates. Looking at MSNBC's heavyweights - I think, especially if Gore doesn't commit in say the next half year, Kerry has an excellent shot. I wonder in Iowa, where the caucuses likely bring out more of partisans and political junkies if Kerry's principled stands will help him vs Clinton's trianglizations.

[TayTay]

35. All fights are uphill fights.

Remember, the emphasis, on purpose, has been on the '06 race and candidates, not on the '08 race. The case of another run for '08 can't be made because it is not yet time.

There is baggage this time. All candidates have baggage. Some just haven't had it brought out into public yet. The great problem with the Democrats is that they keep thinking that we will have a perfect candidate emerge who will be impossible to smear. Such a human being does not exist and this point of view ignores how the modern Rethug Party operates. If there is no obvious baggage, some will simply be made up.

It is too early to get discouraged. It simply is. Is there a very high hill to climb. Undeniably. Can it be done? Remains to be seen. Should it be tried? Sure, why not.

There will be people at every interval who tell you that this can't be done. So it was in '03 when people said that Dean had this thing sewed up and everyone else should go home.

I understand what your Mom said. There will be a lot of that. There will be others who say otherwise. However, what will matter is what happens next year, how events are reflected in that race to come, and how it comes to play over a long, long, long marathon.

BTW, it also deeply matters not how everyone feels in America. It matters about how 135,000 people, in the aggragate, feel in Iowa, NV and NH. Remember these numbers, they are important.

IOWA CAUCUSES Jan 19th, 2004
Kerry 1,128 38% 20 99% *about 48,000 people.
Edwards 957 32% 18
Dean 540 18% 7
Gephardt 318 11% 0
Kucinich 39 1% 0
Uncommitted 15 0% 0
Clark 3 0% 0
Lieberman 0 0% 0
Moseley Braun 0 0% 0
Sharpton 0 0% 0

Source: Des Moines Register

About 100,000 Iowans are thought to have participated.


NEW HAMPSHIRE Primary Results Jan 27, 2004
John Kerry 84,377 38.4 13
Howard Dean 57,761 26.3 9
Wesley Clark 27,314 12.4 0
John Edwards 26,487 12.1 0
Joseph Lieberman 18,911 8.6 0
Dennis Kucinich 3,114 1.4 0
Richard Gephardt 419 0.2 0
Al Sharpton 347 0.2 0
George W. Bush 257 0.1 0
Other 1,000 0.5 0
Total 219,787 100 22 (of 27)

These are not NATIONAL numbers. These are numbers based on about 100,000 people in Iowa and about 220,000 people in New Hampshire. (It is, of course, unknown how many will turn out in Nevada. Current estimates for that caucus range from 5,000 to 10,000 human souls will participate in 2008.)

I understand your Mom's opinion bothers you. I get that. However, this is not a national race until the summer of 2008. Until then, it is a state by state race and some states matter more than others. (The process is inherently unfair.) We don't get 300,000,000 Americans. We get 48,000 or so in Iowa and 80,000 or so in NH. That's the reality of what a Presidential primary campaign is. IT is fought on the ground and as STATE races.

You are vastly jumping the gun here.

[beachmom]

41. I'm talking about this moment in time and the MSM situation

And we can't deny that those 100,000 folks will take into account what other people on the sidelines will think when the primary voters go out to vote. So I don't think we should discount that. However, your points are very well taken.

[TayTay]

42. It is irrelevent

Those are opinions of 10/06. Completely irrelevent to 2008, unless your Mom is an early primary voter in 2008.

It simply doesn't matter this far out.

[kerrygoddess]

56. There's a trend tracking company that

is tracking potential '08 candidates in the news and online and JK is far ahead of the pack. I was emailed some of the results and they are very very promising and favorable.

The company tracks products and consumer stuff - many in the company are political junkies as well.

They sent me the info because I write so much about JK and they thought I would find it valuable. I've been holding off writing about it until the mid-terms are over because JK is so commited to that right now.

[wisteria]

36. Well to balance out your post, my mother -a former Republican,

Fox News watcher and former political aspirant's wife, has a more favorable view of Senator Kerry. I will also add my father into this- a former Republican committee person for 15 years. Both are turned off by politics now and only get their information from local and national news. Both despise Clinton and do not want to see Hillary get anywhere in 08. My politics don't go over real well, but I have mentioned to both, that Kerry may be considering another run and both have thought this was a positive development, reasoning that he has name recognition,has already been through the mill and has the money and support to run on. Both have favorable opinions of Kerry just based on the last election. Unfortunately though, my mother has a problem with Teresa. She thinks she is one of the reasons Kerry lost and I can't reason with her on this.
Obama is the feel good candidate right now. Your mother is reacting to the media hype. None of this really matters at this point in time. Kerry's name does appear in the main media outlets frequently, but obviously, your mother reacts to fluff pieces. Obama's media presence is currently just fluff. Kerry has been a bull dog in trying to draw attention to his plans and the incompetence of this administration. His actions and words are commanding,not something that can be spun as fluff.
The media does remain a problem though, to many pundits would rather smack him down rather than build up his personal likability and reputation. I really don't have an answer for this other than hammering away at the media to report on him fairly and humanize him a bit more.

[politicasista]

46. I agree

I was listening to Tavis Smiley's commentary on advice he would give to Obama if he runs and it was like was drooling over his vision for America while poo-pooing the last 6 years (not remembering what Gore or Kerry's visions for America was).

[blm]

52. You can dream about vision for America all you want - then terrorism and

nuclear proliferation come around and bite your dick off.

Tavis should bear that in mind.