He is a loser, therefore you cannot show him as somebody competent, or at least not during a long period. Hence what seems the nth version of " Kerry is not liked: . Look, look, the Obama administration has to rein him in.
Note that there is very little factual support for this version in this article itself. May be a couple of remarks concerning things that Kerry said and the WH has not fully supported, which is nothing surprising. If something concrete transpires from the article, it is that there are huge problems that predate Kerry's entrance in the government and that "gasp" he is not Superman. He did not fix problems like the Middle East yet, 5 months after becoming Secretary of State.
This question of media narrative is becoming more and more irritating. We got the same thing in the Senate campaign. Markey has lead polls by 7 to 20 points, and even leads polls that the Gomez campaign sees as positive for him. However, the narrative of a Democrat that does not connect and is stiff continues to be pervasive in every single report, even those who say it is unlikely that Gomez will win. Also prevalent in the coverage is the reference to Brown and how it could be possible that Gomez could win just like him. I guess it is also possible that the independent candidate can win, but is it likely? And is it reasonable to continue with the idea that Markey does not connect and Gomez does. Really? So, why doesn' t he do better?
It is the same "follow the narrative" that allows stories like the one MBS posted. It is clear that the facts in the story are correct. But they hardly support the main point of this story.
Now, I may have to swallow my words tonight if Gomez wins, or in the next few days if Kerry quits out of frustration, but I do not think any of those two hypothesis are likely. It is just that political reporting has taken a turn toward fiction.
= new reply since forum marked as read