Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

karynnj

(60,088 posts)
12. Thanks for posting it
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 03:03 AM
Jun 2012

I agree that the BG framing is rather annoying in the way it covered the oversight that has been done. They quote partisans - who are basically anti-war - and the comments by the Kerry staff on the number of hearings. They also quote Kerry on what he has done. Yet, as this is an in depth interview, why did the journalist not check out the SFRC website where he could quickly scan Kerry's opening statements on at least a few hearings? (watching the hearings would likely take too much time.) Doing that, he as a reporter would have an informed opinion on whether the critics or Kerry were more correct. (The fact is that other than on Libya, Lugar has nearly always taken similar positions and has been no more confrontational - and often less so.)

What I have seen is that Kerry has asked serious questions which have at times suggested that he was not in full agreement with the policy. On Afghanistan, the clearest cases were the series of hearings he had before Obama opted to go with the surge backed by Gates and Clinton. Then there was the last hearing with Holbrooke where both he and Holbrooke were almost brainstorming on what could work -- as the policy was clearly not working. Kerry was also pretty clear in his difference on Honduras.

The article actually explains - without seeming to get it - why there has not been a confrontational relationship - and it is NOT their explanation that he is trying to get the SoS job. It is that Obama and Kerry have relatively similar world views. That AND the fact that Kerry has often been one of the voices Obama has consulted may be why this is true. It is very hard to seem confrontational when you agree. The only time that I ever sensed a disagreement where Kerry worked to back Obama was that it really seemed that Kerry wanted Obama to get Congressional approval on Libya.

However, the article basically describes a very competent Senator and diplomat. It says something when a career diplomat says he is the best negotiator that he has seen in his career. Not to mention, saying he is pragmatic and patient. The Biden comments are very nice as well. That he is close to the administration is something that a Senator is USUALLY praised for. Not to mention, this is the opposite of all those articles in 2006/2007 of Kerry essentially being almost an outcast as far as powerful Democrats were concerned. Here, he is clearly important on foreign policy and it is obviously for his political skill that he was chosen to "play Romney". It is silly for papers to suggest it is because he is tall, has good hair, and is from MA - as Axelrod pointed out he is a good debater. (Obama needs to publicly point out when Romney lies. He does all the time and no one corrects him - just as no one corrected Bush in 2004. I doubt Bush even realized the danger of his linking Saddam to 911 until Kerry called him out very effectively.)



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»John Kerry»long article on JK in Bos...»Reply #12