"Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees -- and (Almost) Each Other"

[wisteria]

From the I have Kerry all wrong and I am a jerk- Dana Milbank


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001457.html?hpid=topnews

"Yesterday's global-warming debate between John Kerry and Newt Gingrich was, as the moderator put it, "advertised as a smack-down and a prizefight." But those labels were too modest for Kerry."

"Welcome to our environmental version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates," the former Democratic presidential nominee told the crowd in the Russell Caucus Room. "We flipped a coin, and I picked Lincoln."

He writes the whole article in this tone. He just can't stand it that Senator Kerry is so popular.


I am e-mailing Milbanks and just to really annoy him, I am going to say I really agree with him that Senator Kerry is indeed Lincolnesque.

[JI7]

1. jerkoff

how are people like this able to pass themselves off as journalists. his whole article is bs and doesn't descrbe what went on in the debate at all.

he is so full of shit.

again, did Kerry take away their girlfriend in college or something ? they act like a bunch of snarky jealous pricks .

[Mass]

2. Or, how do you dare have a real debate on real issues when I am only a pundit.

So, Milbank objects real debates. What does he want: fist fight and OK Corral dual?

Milbank is really a jerk and it is sad that this is nearly the only reporting the "liberal" media is having on the debate. For once, the RW media like Fox have done better than the right wing media. Sad date.

[MBS]

3. what an unbelievably bad article

It's as if reporters simply can't stand it if someone takes an important seriously and actually knows what they're talking about. I'm so glad I taped the debate last night, so I can remind myself, point by point, how far off the mark Milbanks is. Want to know how and why the press shares the blame for the tattered state of our democracy? This article is Exhibit A . :grr: Totally outrageous.

[karynnj]

4. How humorless can you get

It's funny as Blitzer picked up on that joke as well. This has to be the talking points to diminish Kerry. It does tell you how awesome he was - as there was very little (or nothing) anyone could fault. The comment was clearly a joke - especially when he said he picked "Lincoln.

His description is not what any of us saw - and not what the National Review blog saw in real time. How does he "know" that Kerry jettisoned prepared remarks that he has the chutzpah to even create? He also didn't bother to point out that Kerry pointed out that he actually had incentives in his 2004 program.

Also, he misplaces Gore - the interesting thing is that on the issue of how to deal with it Kerry is very likely right at the middle ground - like Gore he feels it has to be involuntary, but like Gingrich he feels that incentives will create good options.

This shows what he was up against - the WP is considered liberal and their treatment of Kerry has always been intensely unfair. It makes me wonder if there was more to their complicity on the war than is already known. I don't really like when I begin to see tin foil hat type territory.

They likely see that Kerry is the strongest voice against the Clinton or Bush agendas and they want to diminish him - which is hard to do as Kerry gives them very little to work with.

[wisteria]

5. I agree with everyones comments. This article could have been informative and

fair, but Milbank just had to be a typical no nothing and don't care too, Washington insider. It is obviously is injecting personal feelings into this piece and if he can't be balanced and fair- which is obvious he can't when discussing Senator Kerry, he should not be covering him at all. There was no accurate or balanced reporting in any of this.

After I posted this last night I though about his comments about Kerry's entrance and I though how off base they were too. I just assumed that the Senator, being a busy man, had just arrived and didn't want to interrupt or disturb what was getting started. That is common courtesy.

Last night I e-mailed Milbanks, today I am going to contact the paper and state the obvious about Milbank's and his coverage on Senator Kerry. And, in a larger sense he discredits the entire debate, which does a dis-serve to all of us.

[Democrafty]

28. You are 100% correct on his entrance.

I was actually there yesterday - he stood in the doorway for the opening statements, and after a while, the speaker offered him a chance to take his seat. Milbank is making a big deal out of nothing.

[MBS]

6. I just sent this LTE to WaPo

As it happens, I managed to watch the Kerry-Gingrich global warming debate in its entirety yesterday, and Dana Milbank’s irresponsibly snarky account bears no resemblance to the heartening event that I witnessed. Joyously in his element, Kerry argued his points with fluency, humor, confidence, and depth; though outclassed by his counterpart, Gingrich at least made points worth discussing. Questions from the audience were knowledgeable and heartfelt. Yesterday’s discussion was an all-too-rare example of what political debate should be : substantive, constructive, and devoid of personal acrimony. Want to know why people have lost respect for the media? Want to understand how the media’s abandonment of journalistic responsibility has contributed to the sorry decline in our democracy? This inexcusably shallow, cynical, and, above all, grotesquely inaccurate article is Exhibit A.

Address for these jokers is [e-mail]

[whometense]

7. Great letter, MBS!

I think you say it all.

[TayTay]

8. My letter

When the editors and sales people from the Washington Post get together to try and figure out why sales are down and why younger people are not reading newspapers, I hope someone holds up a copy of this article.

I watched some of this debate with my daughter. She thought it was informative and an excellent exchange of ideas from two very smart and engaging men. I showed her the Milbank article above. She said it bore no relation to the event she saw in TV. She wondered if Mr. Milbank was somehow jealous of either Kerry or Gingrich or just angry because they were talking about difficult subjects and Mr. Milbank would have had to do some homework in order to understand the issues under discussion.

My daughter told me that she can go to any number of blog sites on the internet and get more information on what was actually said in this debate. She got nothing from the Post article but the idea that Dana Milbank is a bitter and cynical guy who seems to resent it when anyone wants to talk about real issues.

I hope the editors of the Post and the people who are so worried about failing sales of newspapers pay attention to this. People will pay for genuine news stories that actually write about the events and issues. They are turned away by smarmy articles from people who obviously feel they are so superior to the people they cover that all they can barf up on the page is bile and cold cynicism. This is what leads to the death of the newspaper business. Editors, take heed of this.

[wisteria]

9. "bitter and cynical guy" -great lines. Good letter! n/t

[MBS]

11. terrific, Tay Tay

May their inbox be flooded with letters.

[ProSense]

15. Awesome!

My daughter told me that she can go to any number of blog sites on the internet and get more information on what was actually said in this debate. She got nothing from the Post article but the idea that Dana Milbank is a bitter and cynical guy who seems to resent it when anyone wants to talk about real issues.

That's the reality.

[karynnj]

35. I love your letter

You really can't blame Millbank for being jealous. I've seen and heard him on TV and hie seems to be about the same generation. It must both him that Kerry is effortlessly

classier
more intelligent
more eloquent
more accomplished
far better looking
not to mention, a far better person and a genuine war hero.

I guess it would be hard not to be jealous especially if like Millbank you thought you were special.

[wisteria]

10. Very good letter- it makes an excellent point about the problem with our media today. n/t

[ProSense]

14. Excellent!

:applause:

[karynnj]

16. Fantastic!

[mloutre]

24. They quoted some of Milbank's snarkastic piece...

... in the current blog threader at:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2007/04/kerrygingrich_debate_builds_bu.html

They did note that it was unsurprisingly snarky when they quoted it there, but the basis of the threader is that there was a broad range of reactions to the lack of partisan viciousness in the MSM and blog reports of the debate.

Feel free to post your reactions to the Milbank piece and the others to the thread over there as well (but bear in mind that it's on johnkerry.com, not DU... so remember to use your indoor voices, ahem.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

37. Crap.

That is breathtakingly awesome.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

You have a real way with words.

[ginnyinWI]

12. ABC did a pretty good job

At least the online reporting: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/kerry_gingrich_.html

[wisteria]

25. Yes, that is good. n/t

[sandnsea]

13. Compared him and Romney yesterday

Romney's gun deal to Kerry actually hunting. There isn't a comparison there, but Milbanks made one up and ran with it. Dished Massachusetts and northerners in the process. None of it made any sense. Journalists need to stop trying to be funny and just report news.

[wisteria]

26. I heard that. n/t

[Blaukraut]

17. a little late, but here's my letter

Whichever debate Dana Milbank watched, it could not have been the one I, and probably the rest of the viewers saw.
Evidently Milbank was jonesing for a partisan slugfest and was sorely disappointed, as the bitter and snarky tone of his report suggests. What he doesn't seem to get is that the issue of global climate change is larger than petty partisanship, and that John Kerry was likely pleasantly surprised and pleased that an arch conservative like Newt Gingrich could agree with him on most points.
To Milbank, a jaded reporter of the 'kewl kidz' variety this is an alien concept, and undesirable. He and his ilk would rather see the world go down in flames and our politicians beat each other up without getting any results because it just makes for so much more interesting writing material.
How unfortunate and irresponsible!

[ProSense]

19. Nice! n/t

[wisteria]

27. More good points. great letter too.

Yours is not late. I am still working on mine to the WP.

[ProSense]

18. Milbank was so desperate to set up his premise that he took flight of the facts

From the article:

The warm and fuzzy Gingrich surprised Kerry, who jettisoned prepared remarks that accused the former speaker of "marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers." Instead, Kerry found himself saying: "I've always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had." He added that "your statement is very, very important" and gushed: "I frankly appreciate the candor."

There was no instead. Kerry specifically stated that two years earlier Newt said there was no proof of climate change. Kerry mentioned that you can't believe the science halfway.

My letter to Milbank would only include four words: You are a jerk!

[beachmom]

20. Did you watch the video? Millbank edited the video to make

Kerry look inconsistent when, in fact, it was Newt who changed his tune midway. Going from saying it's happening (which is good as far as it went) to conceding later that it was urgent.

At the end of the video, however, Millbank ended positively and said Kerry's line about Lincoln/Douglas was a "good line". Which completely refuted his article and his video. Talk about inconsistency.

[beachmom]

22. Okay, I re-watched Newt Gingrich's opening statement.

Kerry was 100% right and Milbank is an idiot. A few choice phrases:

Newt: sea level will rise 6 to 23 inches in the next century. I repeat sea level will rise 6 to 23 inches in the next century, which is hardly "catastrophic".

Global warming is a problem that needs to be actively responded to. (This was his strongest statement and does not contain urgency of any kind.)

He also says that economic growth, through African polls, is more important than the environment.

At the end he says the Dutch "aren't panicked". Um, wrong on that one, and Kerry corrects him later.


So THAT is why Kerry nailed him on urgency, and GOT Newt to admit at the end that it WAS urgent. I swear to God, these journalists can't listen and are so biased against Kerry (who is always right, which pisses them off, since nobody likes a "know it all" -- hey did these guys go to St. Paul with him for high school?), that they just make shit up.

Anyone know when a transcript will be available? I feel a diary coming, but I want hard evidence.

[ProSense]

21. A realistic summary of the debate is

here.

[ray of light]

23. someone is gd posted about the debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3210227

[ginnyinWI]

29. Milbank is on KO all the time.

And he also has Richard Wolfe on, who I don't think has much to offer. I like a few of his pundits, but am beginning to lose confidence in KO and think that he isn't so much out to get the Right, as out to get anybody in authority--and that would include JK. Am I being unfair? Or is he someone who is out to get anybody, and that's how he tries to pump up the ratings.

[wisteria]

30. No, KO disappoints me at times with some of his righteous attitude

and you are correct, Millbank and Wolfe are regulars and they both take swipes at Kerry regularly getting what they claim all wrong. Actually, KO seems to specialize in pundits that slap Kerry around.

[ginnyinWI]

31. Countdown's about the last cable show I still watch

except for Cspan. I get better news on the big three networks and PBS. If it weren't for Cspan it wouldn't be worth watching any cable news networks. I wonder if they will last long-term. How long can they continue to offer up their watered-down drivel and keep their audience. I guess I answered my own question: there are plenty of people more than willing to lap it up. :(

[beachmom]

32. Part of this has to do with business partnerships

Newsweek and MSNBC are partnered so that's why you'll see Newsweek writers on KO. What about the WP? Is there any relationship between MSNBC and the WP? I swear KO doesn't always care for the pundits he talks to, particularly the MSM ones. But, to be fair, he'll also bring in Larry Johnson or somebody from lib radio or John Dean. These are people who are very anti-Bush. I think the MSM pundits are brought in to temper KO's more liberal stance (or is he more just an anti-Republican?). And really -- watch Jim Lehrer and then watch KO. Clearly, KO is the most liberal news show on cable AND the networks. I can't stand Democracy Now!, which I think is overall in Naderland, so KO is the best bet. KO also picks up a lot of stories trumpeted on the lib blogs, so let's keep this all in perspective. Incidentally, there is a lot of snark against Kerry on the lib blogs, so that also might influence KO.

[blm]

33. May I suggest you all cc your letters to Keith and to Media Matters?

.

[karynnj]

34. That's a good idea - especially if the copy is shown and not blind

I wish I would have done that.

[MBS]

36. there's a relationship between Newsweek and WaPo

so, I guess, by extrapolation, Newsweek, MSNBC, and WaPo are all interconnected.

[wisteria]

38. However, why do we need three cable news stations offering the same dribble?

I am tied of the fake news, the political pundits that get the facts and stories wrong and the same news, repeated over and over again until I don't care anymore.