Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

(Kerry's) done substantively far more in a few months as secretary of state than Hillary Clinton did in her entire competent, but quietist, term.

and came here to let others know . Quite a quote, isn't it? I think that something else is worth quoting, a "double-quote" since it is Sully quoting from the The Guardian. Enjoy all

First, it was the traveling back and forth that was a waist of time, then it was both sides considering coming together that wasn't going to happen, and now that they have met and have agreed to more talks, this is all going to lead no where. I honestly feel some people want to see Kerry fail. It would just kill them when he succeeds.

Ironically, he may be happier and more successful at SoS than he might have been at President. Just look at how frustrating the job of President has been for Obama. Since the House fell to the Republicans, he has been able to do very little in terms of major progress.
I don't think JK would have fared much better in this environment. He can do excellent work as SoS and leave his mark on history if these talks are ultimately successful. Either way, I'm wicked proud of him

I just saw the statement about the Egyptian coup restoring democracy. I am not sure where he actually falls, but frankly, this statement is shocking for me. What we see is a coup. Happy to see he tried to clarify, but somebody has to explain to me how turning over a democratically elected government that the army had done everything to make unpopular is restoring Democracy and I would hope that Kerry agrees with that, whatever his pragmatism tells him to do.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/us-commits-to-finding-peaceful-solution-to-egypt-crisis-1.1482995

not doing more to help the gay athletes' rights/gay olympians and Russia. Some members of Congress wrote a letter to him saying he should speak out more.




IMO, he is also nominated a new envoy to Egypt (Thought that was Obama's job?) Quite sure he will be pressured at some point to named a woman or person of color (not to the Middle East, but other regions) very soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/world/middleeast/kerry-picks-former-syria-envoy-as-ambassador-to-egypt.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimesworld&_r=0



In addition to what wisteria said above, also MHO that Kerry gets judged more harshly than any other Obama cabinet member, minus AG Holder. Just an observation.



If the links above are not appropriate, will delete it asap.

He should not take any heat from our part on this if we are not ready to blame Obama and the WH. If the US is not ready to say it was a coup, then what was it? As I said, I disagree with his comment (assuming we have his full comment and are not missing part of it), but could somebody tell me why it is any different from the position of the administration. I want to say Dempsey went high in my esteem when he disagreed with Kerry but refused to take the bait when Raddatz tried to have him say that Kerry misspoke. Once again, as long as the president will not decide whether it is a coup or not, it does not make anybody's life easier. Same goes for Syria (how do you get people to sit around the table if you have no leverage), Egypt (same thing).

As for Russia, once again I will not stop on what ONE person says. As for the letter from Congress, it is strange that people want to see that as a rebuke to Kerry, but when they were writing to HRC, it was not. This said, I hope he will speak out, even though it is not easy to speak out when there is no leverage (what to do? pull out of the OG).

As for nominating women and people of color, he has already (at least for women). Also, remember that the SoS does not nominate ambassador. He recommends them and the president nominates them.

The truth is that it is very clear that the Secretary of State has been managed during the last 4 years in a way that would make easier HRC's candidacy for the presidency. She dealt with sexy things like gay rights, women's rights, civil rights that would please most Democratic supporters, but refused to deal with serious issues. So, yes, there is a lot to do and Kerry has worked a lot on these issues. My only worry is that he is not enough in the US dealing with the department and cabinet issues and that it could (will) weaken his position (I am not that sure that the WH has much loyalty toward him, particularly some of the staffers).

Wish that Obama and Biden would dump the disloyal ones and have Kerry's back.

Wanted to say this above, but didn't want to send this thread into a tailspin. Hope that he can do wonders in the Peace process. However, the next regions he should focus on are Africa, Asia, or Central America (though I don't know what Obama wants to do). The Middle East just seems complicated and endless fighting.

As for Russia, interesting the ABC writer (LZ) tweeted a less critical tweet urging Kerry to speak out more on that issue, though leverage is an issue. IDK why people have an axe to grind with Kerry and never with anyone else, but that is another story for another day.

Glad to see that there are women and people of color that are being nominated and recommended, though wonder where there loyalties really are (minus Caroline Kennedy).

Your last post is spot-on. Been lurking at the President's diary and they have been very complementary of Kerry's efforts. Some of them are waking up to the fact that Obama should have chosen Kerry five years ago.


Not familiar with the State Department drama, but hear there are some complicated elements (i.e. racism, etc) there. Wonder if there is a way that he or any of his true loyalists (i.e. Wade) could help out there. Hope they can hang in there. With Momma T feeling better, hope he can hang in there too.

- and they do not seem alone. One explanation I heard before Kerry spoke was that a coup is where the military takes power and here they are just allowing it to be transferred to others. To me, this is standing on your head to find a reason to argue that it is not a coup. The real problem seems to be that if they call it what it clearly is - they can't give money and lose all leverage (though we have little.)

One problem I see is that the up side of democracy was always if you really had the best plans etc, you could eventually convince enough people and you could gain power. Bad as they are, doesn't this make the MB a permanent enemy of the state - because they are essentially being told that EVEN if they do win, they can be unceremoniously out of power. How can they ever be transitioned into a loyal opposition or the party in power. If they can be neither, where does that leave them -- and us.

It is true that Hillary gave a great speech - all very safe, idealistic and non specific. There were many far graver anti-gay events then - and she did not speak of any consequence (from the US) to countries like Uganda where you could be killed for being gay.

If you feel it is needed, Kerry took more risk testifying before Strom Thurman's committee for gays in the military - speaking honestly on the issue at a point where there was a potential political cost in doing it - something I have never seen a Clinton do. Add that he was the only up for re-election Senator to vote against DOMA - calling it both gay bashing and unconstitutional in 1996, when it was clearly not without political risk for someone with Presidential ambition. There was also being the first Senator (and the only one for years) to advocate for giving gay immigrant spouses the same privilege given if they were straight. Kerry takes a back seat to very few on gay rights -- and certainly not to Hillary. (This does confirm that she and the media intend to bill her years as SOS as fostering women's and human rights - though it seems just words to me.)

In addition, this issue just recently surfaced. The law as explained in one article says foreigners can go to jail if they support LGBT issues. If that were interpreted literally, they could arrest nearly any American Democrat - including the SOS if it were not for diplomatic immunity. The IOC needs to get clarification of what the rules for both athletes and visitors to the Olympics will actually be. This an issue that should first be addressed behind the scenes by the IOC. This is not a specifically American issue. Only if the IOC was doing nothing - and we have no idea what they are doing behind the scenes - should this be addressed by Kerry and other foreign ministers.

As to US visitors not related to the Olympics, the first responsibility of the State has to be to get a clear definition of what Americans can be arrested for doing -- and they need to communicate that in State Department travel advisories. I did find this page that addresses LGBT travel in general. I suggest that Ganderson use this State Department advisory to put the issue in context. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/lgbt/lgbt_5887.html The fact is that there are countries with laws that go far beyond Russia's and this seems to infer that the US government can not change other country's laws.

The other point is that Kerry making a strong statement - which he could do with ease - that would make some on DU happy for at least 30 seconds - is that it weakens his ability to do his job on any issue where he needs to work with the Russians -- including on this. It makes far more sense for Kerry and his peers to work behind the scenes with the IOC and Russia, to find a viable solution that protects the safety of all US athletes and spectators from consequences with this aw.

Last edited Mon Aug 5, 2013, 12:33 AM - Edit history (5)

What is really clear as Mass said is that HRC's tenure as SOS is primarily being spun as her being a passionate advocate for women, children and human rights. Her speeches were good. Here - the Olympics are years away. The law was just passed.

Yet, you have him bemoaning the fact that Kerry has yet to DO something. (Note the difference in the tests used. Hilary's speeches did not - at least for the most part - lead to change in any country that I can think of -- yet he praises her based solely on his words. What would Hillary say at this point - after the law passed, but before there has been any official statement on how this impacts the Olympics? Her speeches were not against any country that we need to deal with. So, the comparison is not very sensible. It also begs the question, would any diplomat, shoot his mouth off on a sensitive issue. My guess is the best way to make the Russians INFLEXIBLE on this is publicly come out screaming at them. (Consider this is a cultural issue - and not so long ago ( 50 or so years) there were states where homosexual acts were illegal - as they were in England - even if you were as famous as Oscar Wilde.)

I think we will see many of these comparisons - on many things. I saw one that blasted Kerry for what they called his Egypt "gaffe" while saying that HRC was flawless in making statements. The Obama policy that we can not call it a coup is the root of why NO ONE has been able to speak clearly on this. (As to HRC being flawless - I suggest looking at her comments on Palestine when Mitchell was working to get the talks going.)

These comparisons will get very disturbing and I would assume that they will continue. The other side is that I have seen some VERY pro Kerry comparisons --- on the Fox site, the Chicago Tribune etc. Not to mention, look at what I think is the completely misinterpreted McCain comment -- that HRC was a "rock star" SOS, who did not work on the issues that JK is now working on. I think this is a devious comment - especially in seeming not to be negative. These are even MORE disturbing. The more praise JK gets as SOS, expect people "on our side" to push unflattering (to JK) comparisons to increase.

And you and others in this good group aren't the only one that are seeing where this (the comparisons between them) is going, especially since we are now in the silly season.

He should speak out on the Russia/Olympics issue, but take his time doing it the diplomatic way it should be done. If behind the scenes is more effective, he should do that.

The whole Egypt/Pakistan/Middle East thing seems really complicated. Props to those that are willing to get their hands dirty to solve the crucial issues. Though hope that Obama has something up his sleeve on this coup thing. Thank goodness, I don't read newspapers when it comes to politics. Wonder if the foreign media is more fair and balanced. The US media has been going down the tubes since the Bush years, only now it seems worse with Obama.

For the record, do very much hope Kerry succeeds as SOS. Would love for the DC press eating cake after it's in their faces.

Hillary Clinton didn't have the grit or extensive knowledge Kerry does to be a great SOS, so nothing much was accomplished during her tenor. Being SOS served to pump up her resume. And, actually when you look at her long political career what has she really accomplished on behalf of the US that can long be remembered? Now, what she has accomplished on her own behalf is another story.

and, shockingly coming from the Globe, no snark.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/08/13/john-kerry-personal-imprint-seen-state-department-team/heCTCqOhgmjWqVw6vxyPcJ/story.html

These were my favorite parts. .

MBS, I really like the parts you highlighted. This seems how you would want someone to staff an organization. I find the McCurry comment interesting -- wasn't he a Bill Clinton person?

Been in lurk mode (too much Anti-Kerry, Anti-Obama, Anti-Dem stuff) , but saw this last week. Good read.

Best wishes to all the new people at State and sure there is more to come.