Kerry's Actual CFR Speech

Not quite what was reported. It is 99.99% exactly what we need to do, with more insight than any other candidate. I think the name James Baker is put in there to indicate that even Bush's father did a better job on Israel/Palestine than this Bush. It really is a great speech and I wish people would read the whole thing rather than just focus on James Baker. Kerry isn't going to appoint James Baker to anything, the idea is just silly.

"Just as American cannot go it alone, we cannot neglect our indispensable role in the search for peace in the most volatile region of the world. President Bush pays lip service to the idea that Mideast Peace is critical to combating terrorism. But his Administration has lurched from episodic involvement to recurrent disengagement, jeopardizing the security of Israel, encouraging Palestinian extremists, and undermining our own long term national interests. Leaders of good will on both sides, private citizens as well as public officials are working to advance the peace process, with some of them offering the vision of a final settlement. They understand, as President Clinton did, that it may be easier to break the stalemate and end the violence fostered by extremists if the end game is the focus, not the steps leading up to it. In the first days of a Kerry Administration, I will appoint a Presidential Ambassador to the Peace Process who will report directly to me and the Secretary of State – and who will work day-to-day to move that process forward. There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans who I would consider appointing, including: President Carter, former Secretary of State James Baker, or, as I suggested almost two years ago, President Clinton."


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1203.html

I know Democrats like Kerry were talking about sending Clinton way back when Bush first decided against entering into any negotiations.

Carter is a great man.

carter, clinton and baker were all involved in some big steps toward peace in the middle east. it was james baker's work before clinton got in office for the first bush administration which set the course for the negotiations for peace between israel and palestine. and this is why his name came up. i'm sure most people don't know about this though. i personally don't like baker much, but his role in dealing with the israel/palestine issue was positive. in fact many didn't like him because he wasn't pro israel enough(meaning he was pretty objective). and this is why kerry said he would consider him for this specific role.

to do what is best for the country. This should help him in New Hampshire despite the poll everyone is crowing about tonight.

And you really think this will make even a tiny difference in NH?

I do believe that Kerry meant to show that he can go beyond partisan pols, and I applaud the sentiment, but this was probably a mistake. With the Dem base, anyway.

It brought out the idea that we should use people who have been through the process already and not start over with every new administration. He also added other names to clarify the point, and brought in the idea of a bipartisan envoy. I see why news articles don't always match what people actually say. Alot of it is in the delivery, not the prepared remarks.

This is the first time I saw and listened to Sen. Kerry speak in detail about FP in general.
Yes I have read stuff that he has stated vis-a-vis in newspapers and magazines and I just did not like what was shown to me.
But watching him earlier tonight--randomly flipping channels--he earned alot more respect from me on issues that truly effects me. He wants to try to up open channels of dialogue and work the issues out; if that doesn't work...drop the hammer of sanctions or worse on these individauls, organizations/corporations, countries that don't/won't comply or come to the table.
By far this is a good way of going with the Middle East.
Mend channels of dialogue with the Islamic countries as a whole.
Mend channels of dialogue with Iran with the topics of drug trafficking and terrorism in the beginning.
Mend channels of dialogue with the warlords in Afghanistan..disarm or else.
Mend channels of dialogue with Isreal and Palestine...on all those issues.

The media has been horrible with Kerry, everybody really. Gossip column politics, that's all it is.

Kerry is this way on EVERYTHING. It's so hard for supporters to advocate for him. How do you put that speech in a paragraph? You missed the religious summit, the information about building relationships in Asia, how he worked on Vietnam normalization, and we both probably missed a bunch more.

Every speech is like this. Energy independence. Manufacturing. Health care. Education. Trade. Small business. Civil rights. Crime and the justice system. Everything.

Here's the Pressroom link. Over on the right is speeches. The speeches have more indepth policy.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/

Off the home page is a link to policies. The links at the bottom pop open into short dits. They used to be more in-depth, but they shortened them up recently.

Hope you take a few minutes to browse through.

TY...it is a big difference reading spots in various locations and watching a speaker being spoken. The tone, reflection, the response to the how the crowd is responsing to the speech, etc; is very important to see as well as too hear what is being stated. The naturalness of the topic coming from him was 1st rate.

a handful of years ago. He is extremely intelligent - magnetic - full of energy - topped with a great sense of humor. He's got what it takes to beat Bush and give us back our country!