I read your linked Politico article on Kerry and Clinton and it is really strange. As one who values Kerry more than Clinton, I was surprised to find that read closely, it has far more passive barbs against Clinton. Highlighting her travels, but then spending paragraphs that boil down to her not having dealt with big issues, high diplomacy, or been a key policy person for Obama.
They do repeat the WP meme stated as fact that Rice was the first choice. They also argue that Kerry's career was up and down, while HRC's is an upward arc - which is not really true. HRC LOST the primary, Kerry was cheated out of the general election. It ignores that, though losing the Presidency was a blow, he was still a senior senator and his status in 2009 as Chair of SFCR was higher than he was in 2003. Not to mention, given their sometimes implicit, sometimes stated view that HRC was not a powerhouse as SOS, if she does NOT win the Presidency, she has accomplished less than Kerry at this point in time!
They repeat the constant HRC, rock star, popular meme - and seem almost surprised that Kerry looks to people like Marshall as a model. Marshall was probably the best SOS in the last 100 years and if you look at what has motivated Kerry in FP over his public life, that makes sense. (They are so silly they even question why Europe/Middle east and not China.) The comment that history will be less kind to Kerry is ridiculous - that will depend on what he does and given his principles and values, I would guess that, at the worst, he will be seen as not being able to get impossible things done - and equal to Clinton, in spite of her vaunted superstar status. A status awarded by the media and denied Kerry in 2004 - while routinely given to others (Rubio) for no particularly compelling reason.
= new reply since forum marked as read