A blogger over here announces, with a flourish (and a half-dozen trackback pings to the two posts I wrote on it), that John Kerry did not, in fact, say, “I’ve met foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly …” but, in fact, said, “‘I’ve met more leaders who can’t go out and say it all publicly …” This based on a reevaluation of the tape of the talk by the reporter who originally quoted the report.
Fair enough. The article notes that Kerry had been arguing that he’d used the word “heard” instead of “met,” but then changed it back to “met” with the “more” amendment. The Kerry campaign now says that it hadn’t questioned the quote up to this point because of a problem with the tape — which is kind of an odd way to defend your candidate when he’s being called a liar by the Secretary of State, grilled by someone at a campaign stop, or being called upon for clarification by reporters all over the place.
The blogger suggests that further “righty website owners” using the “foreign” quote from here on out are thus “willfully lying.”
Okay, assuming the report is now accurately transcribing the talk, despite it being “hard to hear the word on his recorder,” and assuming that Kerry is now willing to stick with “met” instead of “heard,” fine. It still doesn’t answer the question of whether it’s particularly clever or wise for someone to claim all sorts of secret support, but fine.
On the other hand, an e-mail from the Globe reporter in question, giving the full context of the quote, doesn’t really indicate that the correction makes any different.
MILTON FERRELL: “This is more than just the 50 states. You travel around outside the states, the people are still [inaudible] Europeans and elsewhere, they’re counting on the American people. They hate Bush, but they know we’re going to get rid of him. They’re counting on us. [inaudible] It’s a lot more than just [inaudible]-“
KERRY: “I’ve been hearing it, I’ll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I’ve met more leaders who can’t go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, whereever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute,” a reference to donations, prompting laughter from the crowd.
Does that sound like Kerry’s not talking about foreign leaders? I mean, if he’s talking about US governors, or mayors of US cities, or leaders of Congress, or whatever, why’s it in the same breath as “the coverage in other countries, the news in other places”? Why is it in response to a comment from his state campaign finance chief about places “outside the 50 states” and “Europeans and elsewhere”? Why is he talking about giving donations to any “American abroad” if he’s referring to domestic leaders?
And why, again, would he be quibbling over the “heard from” vs “met” bits, but not the “foreign” vs “more” bits, if that was the real heart of the misquote? Especially since that turns out not to have been the misquote? Why would he continue to stand on principle about not naming any of the leaders in question when folks were asking him about the wrong leaders? Why would he respond to questions about foreign leaders with the argument that who the leaders were didn’t matter, just that the Bush Administration had torqued off a lot of allies?
Hell, why would he argue, after the original misquote:
“I’m not going to betray a private conversation with anybody,” he said Sunday. “I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don’t appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States.”
Pressed on the campaign trail and by reporters to name the leaders, Kerry declined, although he said they were U.S. allies.
“I’m talking about people who were our friends nine months ago,” said Kerry. “I’m talking about people who ought to be on our side in Iraq (news – web sites) and aren’t because this administration has pushed them away.”
So, yes, let’s say that Kerry actually said “more leaders,” not “foreign leaders.” Certainly everything he’s said and done since then seems to make the distinction moot.
From the beginning I’ve said this is a relatively trivial toss-off of a comment, stupid as it was (“Oooooh. all sorts of people really like me, though I can’t tell you who they are!”). But the more Kerry — and his supporters — insist on defending it, the bigger a deal it becomes.
If thinking that makes me a willful liar, then the blogger in question can bombard me with more pings (though not, it’s noteworthy, leave comments open on the post to let me respond to his statement there).
UPDATE: The blogger in question has apologized for chain-yanking-via-trackback-ping. Well, if you’re doing it just to yank someone’s chain, yeah, that’s annoying and a breach of etiquette. Offering up a correction isn’t annoying; poking someone in the arm just to see them react is. And if you’re going to do it, sending just one ping, not six, is probably quite a bit more polite.
But if you’re going to chain-yank, it’s really irksome if you don’t open the pinging post to comments, since it forces replies to, in turn, be done as pinging trackbacks, too. Which is sort of an inefficient way of communication, if you think about it.
Perhaps there is a third alternative. Rather than “more” or “foreign,” the word was “moron.”
Even more annoying was the fact that the pinging post did originally have comments, me and three others responded but the comments were deleted and replaced with the “go to next post” comment.
Which, in turn (at least this morning) did not have comments turned on.