Joan Vennochi about Kerry.

I guess she sees that as positive, but it makes me bristle, because it is largely about how Kerry wants out of the state. At least, she recognizes that he is good at foreign policy, which I guess, should make me happy.

However, in the context of a campaign to make Scott Brown the regular guy who cares about the state, it makes me uncomfortable.


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/02/04/kerrys_sharp_eye_on_the_secretary_spot/


A piece I subscribe totally:


I could not believe that young Kennedy's speech got that much play, including by the Senate leader. It was absolutely ridiculous.

The paragraph before this one is not worth posting. The same insinuation about Kennedy overshadowing Kerry and Kerry flip-flopping in 2004. Worse, she sees Brown overshadowing Kerry as well. Moron.



Frankly, this article sounds to me as an attempt to push Kerry out of the Senate to open a seat for somebody. Knowing that Vennochi has been promoting Charlie Baker for years, it could be that or anybody else. Who knows.
This would probably be the only explanation of this article that tells us that we should not want to have a bright guy as senator? In the mean time, this is another attempt to show Brown as somebody who cares about the state compared to Kerry who does not.

You can always count on her to push the GOP line.

she wrote.

The fact is that both the BG and BH have pushed the very lightweight Brown as hard as they could. Even in the last week, an article trumpeting Brown getting a seat on SBC, which is now somehow an important committee - unlike when Kerry chaired it and it was considered to not be all that significant.

There was also an article with 6 bills that Brown is either sponsoring or co-sponsoring, where the distinction was blurred. There was even a strange Brown quote bragging that he was the only Senator to sponsor both the D and R 1099 HCR requirement repeal bill - even though this was something he, like all Republicans filibustered last year. (Some of the bills do not seem completely serious as his medical devices tax repeal does not have a real offset - even though he claims it is revenue neutral because it says that unused funds (not veterans or defense) should be used. This is actually what Brown has down on many bills - all of which went nowhere.) In addition, one I think is an extension of a passed Kerry bill to include the National Guard.

Not to mention - after Glen Johnson wrote the article where it seemed Kerry's interest in fp started in 2004, his most recent article on Brown - that he was making two MA appearances - out of the blue - mentioned that he was a lt Colonel in the MA guard. (Not to mention, similar Kerry MA appearances never get a BG article before they happen.)

Her equivalencing Kennedy's and Kerry's speeches was beyond silly. The fact is that a Kerry speech to a think tank would almost never get much coverage - we've watched most on the think tank's web site or CSPAN. The intended audience is those in government. The fact is that it got FAR more coverage than could have been expected. Not only that, I have never seen Klein use the superlatives he did. The other thing is that Obama expressed similar ideas in the state of the union. Kerry's infrastructure bank may be the engine to help capitalize the needed projects to "win the future". If it happens, the impact on MA and the country will be considerable.

I am also beyond sick of hearing about the Kerry's yacht.

Frankly, the coverage of the Kennedy's speech irritated me largely because it seems the media and a certain part of the Democratic party in MA cant live without a Kennedy leading. This gives us multiple articles about Vicky Kennedy running for senator (even after she has said again and again she would not), or calling a young man making a good speech on his great uncle the second coming of John Kennedy. I listened to the speech. It was good, but it was not worth the ridiculous elation it provoked, and it was clear that the main quality of the speaker was to be the grandson of RFK.

However, I do not see it as a rebuke to Kerry. Actually, the Globe reported that Kerry spoke at the ceremony for Kennedy's inaugural, which was the circumstance of Mennedy's speech. So, she is wrong on that as well.

But I am sick to see another article about how Kerry is out of touch with the state.

on JFK with the one that Klein et all praised. It actually makes sense that Kennedy's speech on his great uncle in MA was given more coverage than Kerry's in the rotunda of the Capital at a wonderful event that he proposed to Caroline Kennedy.

I hope the Kerry email is expanded or some other way is created to help Kerry get his accomplishments, especially those the help the state, out to people - over the heads of the media. It would be great if he found a way to have some interactive parts as well. Having been lucky enough (thanks Tay Tay) to have been on one of telephone conferences - he is really great speaking informally answering questions. (Something the Jr Senator seem to have less ability with.)

I get your concern - and it is troubling that the disconnected meme is repeated so often. There is a real possibility of it gaining traction if not countered. I hope that Kerry chooses to do a series of big town halls - where he is clearly speaking one to one with MA people. His Sommerville healthcare one was excellent in 2009, when few people could control such an event. I doubt the thin skinned, less knowledgeable jr Senator could. Kerry seems to like debating and meeting with people and he would be doing just what they are saying he doesn't. (There will still be the "yacht", "gigalo" etc nonsense, but more people would see a hard working Senator.)

I am back to edit this due to what I just found looking at what google found. This charge has been there forever - and even the Cheers guys didn't take his autograph. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8cYgYU5OGI Kerry's little cameo was great.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/04/kerry_angling_for_secretary_of_state_post.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+PoliticalWire+(Political+Wire)

How much influence does this mediocre writer have? The Senator is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, it would seem strange if he did not comment on foreign policy events. From this outsider, it appears there are forces at play to promote the younger, "everyman" candidate, Brown pretends to be. Or, perhaps the media is so dummied down in the state, that they assume people can't relate to Senator Kerry. In any event it wouldn't hurt to remind these newpaper people that Senator Kerry is still very much liked in Mass, and remind them of everything he has done recently for the people of Mass. It is just a shame the papers don't feel inclined to report it.

I normally do not read her because her writing is so bad, though, like Dowd, she is an equal opportunity writer, as shown by her coverage of the Governor's race last year.

I am not shocked that there would be a campaign to get newer people running for office. In a state when the dean of the delegation has been there for more than 34 years, and most Democrats in Congress have been there for more than 15, this would not be surprising or shocking. I can get the argument, though it makes no sense making this argument for Kerry, who is not for reelection before 2014. It would make more sense to make it for Markey or Frank.I still would support Markey except if an exceptional candidate was running, but it could make sense.

This said, what I object here is the nonsensical way this article is written. It is not a Vennochi column that will make Kerry SoS, so, what is the point of this column.

Is i possible the snow froze her brain?

(and came here for the comments :-)). It's a completely silly article, with ZERO meat. I have no idea whether Kerry is "angling" for the SoS position or not, but neither does the writer, the article is pure silly speculation. Not even a good picture :-).

I don't care for Joan Vennochi's writing. She always reads like she's reporting from a funeral. But, the premise of her piece, that Sen. Kerry is being taken very seriously for SoS in a possible 2nd Obama Admin is, in my view, viable. It would explain a lot.

I don't think Sen. Kerry would just abandon MA. I think he would like to see a new Senator replace Scott Brown. I think that Sen Kerry would have a lot to do in helping any possible successor along with a second MA Senate opening. (And that rule we put in place last time to appoint a successor and then replace them right away is awful. Appoint an interim, then replace on the next statewide general is a much better way to go.)

Sen. Kerry would have earned this honor. (This kills me to say because he is irreplaceable in MA.) It would be the topper of an amazing, unique and singularly valuable career in public service. I think the Obama Admin knows his worth on the world stage, values his discretion, brilliance and values as a diplomat and would probably ask him to be SoS in a second Obama Admin. And, again this kills me to say, he should take it if it is offered. It would be good for him and good for this nation.

Joe Kennedy III is a good egg. Nice, nice kid who is serious, smart, avoided the bad conduct and attitudes of Kennedy: The 2nd Generation (Matt is 3rd Generation) and would be a good candidate for MA Senate, long-term.

This would be big change for Ma. Maybe we need some big changes, maybe we have calcified and we need to get off our butts and work hard in DC with a new crop of folks. I don't know all that, but I do know that Sen. Kerry would be a gifted SoS and I would not doubt if this happened. I just wish Joannie Vennochi could report this without sounding like she has abandonment issues with Daddy.

regarding Senator Kerry being a gifted SoS, but, I will withold any enthusiasm because his loss would be huge to the people of Mass. and I believe he wanted this position before and was over looked by our President. Obama's choices are unfortuanately, done sometimes for political reasons.

Obama's first term. A lot of people, including myself to a certain extent, did not believe a lot of the DC gossip back then which turned out to be true. John Kerry is a pretty "heart on his sleeve guy". He wants to be Sec. of State. He has never been the big constituent services Massachusetts-is-my-tribe kind of politician. The coverage is only reflecting that, if not a bit unfairly. If someone really needs help, his office will help. But he is not nor will he ever be like Ted Kennedy in that regard.

I think Mass's concerns are real about the coverage being he is not THERE for Massachusetts. But 2014 is a while away and maybe he'll have another job starting in '13. Only time will tell.

JAHO.

I would really like to know about any evidence of that. Maybe he did so in a private moment? I truly can't remember him ever having said anything publicly that indicated that and I'm dying to know whether such confirmation exists!

Thanks to the power of DU JK - here is a thread that speaks of it - the link is to Mass's response on just that - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=161696&mesg_id=161738

Thanks to you, I just found the transcript for that Charlie Rose show!

Here's what I found:



and here's video of the interview online: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10744 (the bit above starts around 51 minutes in)

Oh, and one more interesting bit of the transcript:


Edited to add: I'm so grateful to everyone who helped me find this! It was just driving me batty only to have second and thirdhand interpretations; I feel much better now that I know what he SAID.

The only thing on which I have no opinion is about the young Kennedys.

There take in short is that Kerry is a very useful diplomat as Chair of SFRC. Both are saying two similar things, that Kerry has done well as a diplomat and he likely wants to be SoS. The difference is that TIME places more emphasis on Kerry's value, no matter which position he has.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/04/john-kerry-as-diplomatic-utility-man/#ixzz1D1aut2pq

The fact is, as Beachmom said, Obama selected his SoS for political reasons and could well do so again - even not taking Kerry because he is too valuable in the Senate. (assuming that Kerry is the one he thinks most deserves it.) Obama will pick Kerry only if he feels that Kerry is more useful to him as SoS and that no one else helps him more. Another consideration is that, assuming we hold the Senate, who becomes Chair of SFRC - the next in line is Boxer, unless she preferred to keep the environment. After that I think Bill Nelson. Neither the caliber of SFRC chair as Kerry.)

What is implicitly obnoxious in Vennouci's and other pieces is the idea that the process is and was based on merit - and that having not been the "best" in 2008, Kerry has worked hard to be seen as the best choice when Clinton steps down. The fact is that the media itself named Kerry as the most likely nominee in 2008 and he had far more background on foreign policy and is a more natural diplomat than Clinton.

http://www.wbur.org/2011/02/04/scott-brown-egypt-mubarak

As to who's ready, I assume many Egyptians have answers. One would think that there are several possibilities, including Mubarak. I wonder why JK did not realize the key was to make sure the people had food and water - even though they said they wanted democracy and jobs.

Such a wordsmith!

And thanks to all for this discussion, interesting and very informative.

Really looking forward to the interview tomorrow morning. I barely watched MTP recently, but tomorrow will definitely be the exception.

on the possibility of Senator Kerry become SoS.

I hate all this chatter.

Yep. The chatter isn't good right now, but me will wait and see this time around. :hide:

that was highly praised and the chatter about SoS is because he was considered to have been outstanding in his comments on Egypt. (I even heard conservative pundits, who complimented him on getting the tone right in his oped. Of ALL the people who were at all prominent in the US, no one got more praise - except possibly the President, who also got more criticism.

The chatter is annoying because it is about whether he is trying to get a position -- rather than commenting that he may have been a force for good in this delicate situation. It is impressive how much he was able to side with the aspirations of the people - and still be able to speak to Mubarak using words that were more likely than those of others to move him to consider change.

The chatter is implicitly a compliment to his diplomatic skills, intelligence and importance - the negative is that they are so into the game of ambitions that they ignore that he has had a goal of making the world more peaceful since he was a young man. The problem maybe that they are so caught in the game, that they can't see higher motives. (Not to say that he doesn't want to be SoS, but I doubt his first thought on Egypt was what could I do to seem a good candidate for SoS - when being the foreign policy expert of Obama's run didn't.

in a very respectful way, and respect is IMHO something he desperately clings to.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Does-John-Kerry-Have-His-Eye-on-Hillary-Clintons-Job-6867

What is WAY COOL? Our own DUer JKer Ron Chusid is quoted.

John Kerry: Not Interested in Being Secretary of State


I really hate rumors and speculation.

I have NEVER believed JK wanted to be SoS. Oh, maybe in a "might be nice" kind of way, but it seems clear to me that he does love being Chair of the SFRC and senior senator from MA, no matter how ungrateful certain citizens of the Commonwealth (and I do think they are in the minority, loud and annoying as they are!) may be. If he were to have to go back to being the ranking member on the minority side at some point, that would no doubt make a difference. I pray that will not happen.

As has been noted: as SoS, he might have a certain amount of prestige, but he would also lose a certain amount of independence. And not only does MA need him, but the Senate needs him, and he loves both MA and the Senate.

Now if he were offered the Presidency... :-)

I still think there is wiggle room in that statement for the future just not for the re-election of Pres. Obama. That is what is going on here. Kerry doesn't want to be an "issue" for the '12 election. Smart statement.

Has anyone actually heard it from him? I'm just trying to find a record of that.

It was one of those honest moments, like when he said he was very angry after losing in '04. I apologize but I haven't a clue where he said it. But I know he did, speaking quite candidly. I remember because it was confirmation that a lot of the DC gossip turned out to be partially correct.

I think he mentioned that his Dad was in the service. Something like that.

Anyone else know where that was? It was a one on one interview and not something like Morning Joe. Slower than that.

With all the gossip now it will be hard to find.

as he was the junior senator of MA and Dodd had seniority on him in the SFRC. Dodd chose to stay chair of the banking Committee and, unfortunately, Kennedy left us.

It is a different question whether he would want to be SoS now, as he is chair of the SFRC and has other important positions in other committees. I remember Biden in 2004 explaining that he would not want to be SoS if the Dems had the majority. Being SFRC chair was more interesting and offered more independence. Kerry is already seen as one of the most respected voices in foreign policy and used by the White House for missions they cant take. I am not sure that, at the moment, he wants to be SoS (and frankly, the NYTimes article is certainly not a clue to such a conclusion, coming from the SFRC chair).

Of course, if the Dems lose the Senate in 2012, the situation will be different.

This said, I am not a mindreader (and neither is Vennochi), so my only point was that these speculations are highly stupid and that I do not believe they are fortuitous.

I have been frustrated ever since the rumors first surfaced because I could find no actual affirmative statement from the man himself and it seems that every pundit thinks they know exactly what he's thinking about EVERYTHING, so it's important to me to be able to judge for myself based on hard evidence. If anyone ever remembers the program on which this was said, I'd really love to know about it. I'd love to know exactly how he said it and until I hear it for myself, I'm not going to be able to believe it (though I very much value what both of you remember!)

We all know that he wanted to be Secretary of State in 2008, but there are reasons he could have changed his mind. The first might be the many chances he has had to be a diplomat without giving up his Senate seat. In some ways, it might be more comfortable because he retains his ability to chose his position. That would be lost as Secretary of Stare, even though he might have more influence.

One difference between taking the job in 2008 and taking the job in 2013 is that in 2008, he would have been someone with long fp experience with a President, who had relatively little (though more than Governors who become President.) In 2013, the President will be far more expert himself and he is a President who is fascinated by foreign policy. A SoS will be far less likely to put a real stamp on it.

In addition, in the state department, the Obama administration has made many changes and people there are very happy with the goals. I suspect that whoever comes in after Clinton will get the brunt of implementing them and they will be seen as Clinton's changes (even though the SFRC had a hand in them).

The other thing is that Kerry has too much interest in other things. He sounded incredibly passionate about the infrastructure project and trying to do something on the environment. It may be that the Senate is the second best place for him.

he won't have that much to do in the Senate either. So, well, I think he should keep his options open. Frankly, I'm kind of fine with whatever he ends up doing; I just feel like the Senate is going to become less and less fun.

appealing. And then, their is a quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet that comes to mind, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Substitute Senator for lady of course.
But, seriously, now is not the time for the media to be suggesting such things. I really do believe that the Senator loves being in the position he is in now, and is doing an exceptional job, and this is what is getting him noticed.

There must be something we can do to keep the Big Bag of Beef out of the US Senate.

It is depressing to think of the Senate going Repub in 2012, but it very well could happen.

that Webb is considering not to run.

Sorry, not in Virginia anymore. It's up to Fedup.

I hate this kind of stuff, too.Besides, I really think that he is better off as chair of SFRC. he's got more independence that way, and broader scope: in the Senate, can engage in additional issues he's passionate about -- the environment, etc etc ..

Oh, and it's a great, strong statement, too.

Even more shocking here is the fact that Hillary Chabot cowrote it. She is one of the worse, but this article is just fact.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1314469&srvc=rss

Which is fun to watch, but a bit like unraveling a bowl of spaghetti to figure out.

All these things are concurrently true:

1. John Kerry has the "chops" to be an excellent Secretary of State.
   
2. John Kerry is a wonderful US Senator and has emerged as an organizing force for Center-Left Dems in the Senate. He is valuable to Harry Reid and the Dem leadership for his "smarts" and his chairmanship of SFRC.
   
3. The US Senate is in serious danger of going Republican in the 2012 election.
   
4. Massachusetts Dems need to ramp up for a Senate fight in 2012 to take back the Brown senate seat. This will be a battle as there is no real front-runner at this moment.
   
5. If Sen Lugar leaves or is forced out of the Senate by Tea-Baggers, then Jim DeMint might be the new Chair of SFRC in 2013. Hells Bells, can we really ask John Kerry to be minority leader of a DeMint led committee? (Only partially funny here people. Ahm, Sen. Kerry has put up with enough in his lifetime. Reporting in to DeMint is like serving a term in the worst part of hell.)

Sen. Kerry should be seriously thinking around corners politically right now. He should:

• a: deny he wants the SoS job because it in bad taste to want someone else's job before they leave it
  
• b: Handhold MA Dems and coo nice soothing things to them about how he will never leave them and certainly not when the other Senate seat is up and the MA Dems should be putting resources into taking that back.
  
• c: float some trial balloons about possibly leaving to be SoS in a 2nd Obama Admin so that MA Dems get their ducks in a row and plan accordingly for what happens should he leave. Hey Deval Patrick, if JK leaves, you could think about getting yourself appointed as interim Sen and then run for the seat in 2014. (That would provide continuity.)
  
• d: JK should act as the Senior Statesman of the Commonwealth, and be that bridge from the past to the future the Dems need. We have an excellent group of Congressional folks here. But, they are also an aging bunch. We need to contemplate how we move people up the ranks for some of these seats. We need to jump-start the Dems of tomorrow. JK, if he handles all the preconditions of a jump to SoS, leaves MA well prepared to weather a Repub Senate and allow someone to get some seniority in the seat at a time when seniority is not going to matter as much. (Repubs do committee chairs by ideology, not seniority)

I love having Sen Kerry as my US Senator. BUT, nothing is forever and no one is irreplaceable. I think that JK would make an excellent SoS and, if this is played right, MA can be well-covered for the inevitable generational transfers of political power that will happen in the next ten years. Change is hard, but if it is planned for correctly, it can be a good thing.

I could barely read beyond that nightmarish scenario. Aren't other Rs with higher seniority there?

But the Repubs had Jesse Helms as chair in the 1990's. DeMint would be visible in a position that the Repubs don't like. (Repubs don't like foreign relations. They consider it a lower level posting in the Senate. I don't agree with that, but they do.) This would be a payoff for DeMint, give him a platform to spout garbage on and satisfy their rightwing base.

Yeah, I'm right there with ya. DeMint is a total loon.

DeMint where they won't care what he does.

Minority
Bob Corker
Johnny Isakson
James E. Risch
Jim DeMint
John Barrasso
Roger F. Wicker
James M. Inhofe


It might also depend on the leadership. DeMint is the leader of the tea party people, who now are only a small faction. I doubt the leadership would want him chairing SFRC. (Or is that wishful thinking)

he is part of the ever shrinking sane R caucus. But how can he higher seniority than DeMint? He was elected in 06 and will be up in 12, demint was just re-elected. Also Inhofe (shudder to the 10th power) has been in the Senate for a while, don't know how long, but definitely longer than Corker and probably than demint as well.

a**hole. Serving under him would be a nightmare. Even though he is Republican I really like Senator Lugar, he is reasonable and always seems to be smiling. I would hate to see him lose to a Tea Party candidate. I just don't see the Tea Party having as much power in the 2012 elections-just my opinion.

of people in the Senate that you dislike as much as DeMint, but it's Saturday, I don't want to upset you and I want you to keep enjoying your week-end :-)

"Hells Bells, can we really ask John Kerry to be minority leader of a DeMint led committee? (Only partially funny here people. Ahm, Sen. Kerry has put up with enough in his lifetime. Reporting in to DeMint is like serving a term in the worst part of hell.)"

...just shoot me now or at the very least take away my sources of news. Unthinkable.

Yikes!

and you can guess who I thought for a second was the author :-)

of this piece. However, stepping back from being most concerned about Kerry - the main victims are Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and to Pesident Obama.

I think of all the articles or columns mostly on someone else that took a shot at Kerry and wrote it as assumed truth. Countering them always made me feel weird, because I was not addressing the issue that the column was really about. Yet, I did it because those "opinions" written as if they were facts are insidious as they just slip into consciousness.

Here, she is using Kerry's excellent op-ed and positions to say, what very few mainstream Republicans have said, that the Obama administration was unprepared and stumbled.



The fact is that this was a fast moving situation and any administration would have had some flux in their response. That said - from their first responses, Kerry's was the most compelling - likely to both sides. His very first statement - in 4 paragraphs, showed respect for all sides. The best thing, IMO, was holding out the role models of Ghandi and MLK as in the spirit of those in the street. They deserved that credit then - and deserved it far more as the days went on. It is clear from the title of his op-ed that Kerry quickly saw they were on the side of history. This is not surprising because he has spoken of the need for moderate voices in opposition to the autocrats and he has often pointed out the huge numbers of young people, without jobs or hope of jobs.

I looked over at Gallup.com - and Obama's numbers, which had been rising, have been falling for the last few days - this in spite of the unemployment rate falling to 9.0%. Her praise of Kerry here, along with seeds of doubt about him as a Senator, costs nothing and it lets her blast the administration. I suspect this is not really about Kerry.

and you may very well be right.

Frankly, whether he wants or not is irrelevant at this point. There is somebody there. And Glenn Johnson has at least a paragraph that makes no sense to me (I think I understand it, but it is so poorly written that I could not make sense of the last sentence. I guess it means that Kerry will not be SoS if Biden does not want it. It makes sense, but I really wonder why this sentence is there, as there is really no sign in the article that Biden would lean one way or the other.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/02/kerry_diplomati.html


In a pure Boston context, my guess is that all these talks about SoS have to do with the redistricting in MA. We are going to lose one seat and one representative. If nothing happens, a primary will happen somewhere in the state, so some people in the state Democratic party would love to see either somebody step down (hence the numerous articles about how people were stunned Frank would run again- really? Who is surprised?), or that somebody moves up wither by challenging Brown (it does not see too many people are going for that), or by creating another opening. So, I guess that these articles will happen again and again.

In any case, Kerry would be s a great SoS.

A pronoun is assumed to represent the last person named - thus "his", under what I learned long ago, would refer to Kerry. The sentence then makes no sense. However, replace "his" with "Biden's" and the sentence makes complete sense.

It makes sense that Biden might have more ability to block someone than to be in a position to "name" someone. That, of course considers only the extremes. If Biden wanted Kerry, that would be in his favor - even if it doesn't mean that he is a lock. That comment actually diminishes Clinton. Clinton, because it argues that Biden is the chief "in-house" foreign policy adviser rather than the Secretary of State. (It was true that Biden was the lead administration person in Iraq and that it was Biden, who was the lead interface on the START treaty with the Senate - so there is some perception this is true.

It is a good point, as I would bet that Biden could see Kerry as more likely to overshadow him in that role than Clinton did. Hillary had enormous star power, but she had more expertise on domestic issues than foreign policy. Kerry, outside the administration, has been seen as a very skilled diplomat and someone who has a coherent foreign policy vision. (The contrast in the last weeks on Egypt couldn't have been starker - between Kerry's highly praised statements and op-ed and Biden's gaffe - saying that he would not call Mubarak a dictator. While I think the sentence's meaning rests on why he said "call" rather than "is", it was seen as Biden denying that a dictator is a dictator. )

I agree with you that the possibility of an open Senate seat may be behind this. I also noticed that they again mention Vickie Kennedy just as you have spoken of in other posts.

thought in this article. But at least we know something. The campaign for SoS in 2012 is opened, given the number of moronic articles of this vein. (Note to writers for left wing blogs and sites: before allocating cabinet positions, we need to win the presidency.).
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/hillary_rodham_clinton/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/07/john_kerry_secretary_state


So, let's be clear.

The man has been senator from MA for more than 25 years, but we are still talking about articles written more than 20 years ago when he was just divorced?

He is chairman of the SFRC, but it is made to look like a lustlacker job by this person (compared to editor at Salon.com, it is certainly a great job).

And of course, the nth connection to Ted Kennedy, because nobody ever wrote about this!!!!



So, I feel sorry for Steve K., but, whatever his salary, he is overpaid.

check out the comments at Salon: http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2011/02/07/john_kerry_secretary_state/view/?show=all They're (so far at least) akin to what you'd expect to find in the Boston Herald. On the other hand, if you're concerned for your blood pressure, stay away.

I will never understand what it is about JK that brings out the bottom-feeders.

that has been refuted, but ignored by these posters.

Some people cant grow up.

on most of the garbage. The fact is that most are contradicted by the article - in spite of itself. Many of the attacks ignore that NOTHING has ever been handed to Kerry on a silver plate - in spite of his family and the fact that he came back fro Vietnam a war hero. The post I least liked is one of the last ones that asked if Kerry ever spoke of what he wanted to do in office - stating it seemed to him that Kerry just wanted the titles. There are so many times where he spoke of what he wanted - at least as far back as when he was 25 - and he wrote his first wife responding to hearing his good friend had died, that he wanted to help make the world more peaceful -- something he also wrote in the dedication to "New War" that he wanted his daughters to inherit a more peaceful world -- and it why he took 3 trips in the last 6 months. That post, because it was not knee jerk RW is hard because it shows how successful the media was in hiding who JK is in 2004.

That and the several calling him a hawk on Afghanistan or a neocon, which is just not true are also troubling.

The thing that really is obnoxious is that all these stories are the result of an incredible 2 months for JK. He brilliantly managed the floor fight on New START, he was one force for good in a successful referendum in Sudan - that CW said in August could not happen, and he has been the best, most consistent, sure footed leader on Egypt - and yesterday rescued the administration from their pretty lack luster (esp Wizner and Biden, but also Clinton) response. Anyone else would have had incredible positive press for any one of those things - Kerry gets articles like this - pointing out the 2 things he failed to get - the Presidency and the SoS. The media itself played a huge role in the former (against him) and the latter was a decision that was not based on merit, but on politics. Neither really diminish him. The vast number of politicians never get either of those and few come close - more importantly, few have the accomplishments Kerry does. (He would have a place in history even if he had decided to live a private life after 1972.)

IMO,mostly Dean supporters who supported Kerry in 2004,for the sake of the party, but still think Dean would have beat Bush.

I really really don't get it.
Here's a hard-working, knowledgeable senator, one with integrity, who's really trying to move the country forward . .. someone who's really in the game for a cause larger than himself. A rare species, someone to be nurtured and valued, not smeared and abused.
Yeah, sure, there's the pettiness jealousies of intra-party rivalries, but still.. .
The Right is a lost cause.. . but the left? Come ON.

I log in AGAIN, and now my letter is lost, and I don't feel like writing it again. I read Salon is in trouble financially, and this is another reason why. I may add that TPM is a site where you can basically not comment anymore because they force you to log in with Facebook or Twitter or Gmail. No thanks.

I didn't read the letters except glimpsing a Swiftboater. So somehow right wingers who I can't see being frequent readers of Salon for enjoyment got their letters published.

Frankly, I didn't even read the piece after reading the first paragraph. Politically writing in DC is TERRIBLE. Not an original idea in the article. I would say the fairly conventional political writer at my local paper is better than the national writers at Salon these days.

They know the tone of the articles are going to inspire attacks.

First, why are they writing an article about Kerry under the topic: "Hillary Rodham Clinton"?


Title: "War Room Will things finally, really work out for John Kerry?"

WTH is that about? To paraphrase Kerry criticizing Republicans: Just because you say something doesn't make it a fact (or valid).

Then the lede: "It's hard to feel sorry for John Kerry. He wasn't exactly born into the American aristocracy, but his childhood wasn't marked by hardship, either."

Oh yeah, poor Chairman of the SFRC and distinguished Senator. Morons. As for the rest of it, morons.

Completely bizarre. With all the smackdowns when liberals dare to talk about class (and are accused of starting a "class war"), when it comes to John Kerry, it always has to start with class.