As of the last fifteen years or so, I can't say I do.

About drones, the war in Afghanistan, and so on. I didn't read anywhere in the piece about how Kerry should hold a hearing on Iran, something neocons would want.

Did they complain about Richard Lugar's relationship to GWB?

I think Kerry has done amazing work in his position, naturally largely ignored. I noticed that if I struggled through the whole article, I did read something positive.

that is why the Senator's work in in position is largely ignored imo.

Foreign Policy is just not a glamorous issue as compared to the economy and/or health care, mainly because those are survival issues. Almost asking, 'what does the president of Russia/India or conflicts in the Middle East have to do with me, if I can't get a job or health insurance?'

The foreign policy that most are familiar with are the tragic earthquakes of Haiti and Japan, the two wars of Iraq and Afghanistan; OBL, Hussein, and Ghadaffi, and that is pretty much it. This doesn't seem right, but when the Egypt revolution happened last year, the consensus was (listening to black talk radio) 'why does the O administration need to get involved when we have enough problems here at home. Let them work their issues out.'

Darfur, Sudan and work in Haiti should be getting more attention. Lots of work (still needs to be) done there.

when it comes to foreign policy, so they ignore them (not that they are more competent on the other topics they talk about, but they at least have some knowledge and familiarity with them). BTW, the O administration did not get involved in Egypt and very few people (RW excepted) thought they should be.

The Globe has written several articles concerning Kerry and foreign policy and all of them recognize his major role for the administration.

Ok, now remember people like McCain being all in MSM wanting the O administration to get involved in Egypt.

Not excusing the incompetence of the MSM or talk radio, but IDT that foreign policy gets much kudos because it is has been framed as a boring GOP issue (it should not be), though it's the first topic in a presidential debate. Another note: people do remember the Iran-Contra scandal, but how many can name continents, countries and its world leaders?, Not that that's important, but it's worth asking.

That is good that the Glob can recognize the Senator and FP and his major role for the administration, hopefully other O fans will, but we shall see.

Now that I can no longer read the Globe on-line for free, I no longer read the Globe unless I'm visiting Massachusetts.

of the Indianapolis Star.

I don't know if I have the strength to read it. The one phrase that stands out to me most is JK saying "I have been crystal clear..." I know he was talking specifically about Afghanistan, but it's true in general. He is always crystal clear AND consistent and 99% of the "reporters" who write about him never listen, never research, have no interest and are absolutely always "just operating off some out-there stereotype."

in there and then his response. Who wants a fawning press. It's their job to hold politicians accountable. I know 1971 Kerry would want that.

Obviously, the title is stupid, but sadly, titles are used to bring people to read the paper.

Otherwise, it seems to me this is a well informed article. Nothing is perfect and there are certainly things to be criticized in the SFRC, but it is globally a positive article.

This said, this is so typically Globe. So afraid to be seen as partisan they lean backward to seem critical.

Eventually I'll try to read the whole thing.

Senator Kerry already declined.

(Note, if the politico link is not appropriate, will delete)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77874.html

Buzzfeed seems to have found another reason for it to happen: give Warren a second shot at being a senator.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/belizabeth-warrens-two-shots-at-the-senat

You are right that the speculation will never stop, no how many times the Senator denies SOS interest.

The silly season is and .

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.)

I wish my local paper would cover our Senators so well. Reading the entire article, one would get a fairly positive but nuanced impression of the Senator. What I read from it was that Kerry has done some oversight, but very quietly. He isn't doing scream from the headlines kind of work, but instead has been putting a lot of effort in pointing out where the Administration could do better. And frankly, since Obama has pulled out of Iraq and is moving toward pulling out of Afghanistan, there really isn't a Vietnam to investigate here. No Iran/Contra scandal either.

I still don't like how Libya was handled in the Congress (one hearing only, and little else after), and I think a hearing on drones would be good (but maybe more from the Armed Forces committee), but other than that, poor Chairman Kerry has been hit with a scandal-free non-war monger President. There was real news in that article about the aid to Pakistan report. More of that kind of oversight, Senator.