This quote from Robert F. Kennedy represents my views of Kerry:

[beachmom]

I got it via Andrew Sullivan:

"Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom.....Now, as ever, we do ourselves best justice when we measure ourselves against ancient tests, as in the Antigone of Sophocles: 'All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only sin is pride.'" - Robert F Kennedy.

This is what the IWR purists don't get. The point is to say, "I was wrong", and get to the righting of that wrong. Kerry did that, and he is giving it everything he has to "repair the evil".

[TayTay]

1. Agreed.

There are a lot of people who can recite chapter and verse of why something went wrong. But these arguments are cold and, in a way, inhuman. They argue that what mattered in the IWR vote was "being right" at that moment. The standard of what constitutes "right" is held by them and not amenable to change or interpretation. This loses the human and is therefore a great loss to the argument.

One of the problem with those who argue from the left is the concern about being "right" is more important than the need to explain their side. This is reflected in the continuing simmer about the IWR vote. The lack of latitude and the imposition of absolutes on the argument is a blown chance to communicate with vast numbers of Americans who don't like and will never like being told that they are, in essence, bad people because they supported the war at various points in the last five years. This needs to be examined. We need to find a way to sit down and talk to people. Preaching at them from the moral pulpit is not going to do it. Holding fixed morality contests in which the results are rigged according to preconceived notions is also not going to do it.

Sen Kerry is at a funeral for today for http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x390609842/Salute-for-a-hero">Sgt. Shane Duffy who died fighting for his country in Iraq. Sgt. Duffy did not volunteer to serve because he was a dupe of George W. Bush. He entered the service in order to serve his country. There is nothing that the extreme left can do or say to Sen. Kerry about the war, his IWR vote or the immorality of the war that the Senator will not see in his time with that family today. He will see a young mother left to raise an 8 month old, a mother and father who lost a son, sisters and brothers who lost a piece of their family. The Senator will see a flag-covered casket carry another son of Massachusetts home from war.

I am no psychic, but I would bet that many thoughts about the war, his vote and what service and devotion to country mean, will be there. I would also venture to say that this will be a more profound reflection on the War than a simple "we were right, you were wrong" discussion.

[beachmom]

2. Yes, I agree with all you write, and want to send thoughts and prayers

to the family of Sgt. Duffy. This is Senator Kerry's duty, and a solemn one at that.

Unrelated, yet somehow related, there were some ugly posts on a diary yesterday about Tim Russert who had just died. I used up nearly all of my troll ratings yesterday, some comments were so awful. One poster said we should not care about Tim Russert because civilians in Iraq are dying every day. This is an example of what we like to call "lefty freepers" who are so obsessed with their "I am right and moral" stance that they end up being utterly tone deaf, classless, graceless, and completely uncaring. They have a mirror image ulterego on the Right. We should beware putting too much stock into what they have to say.

[karynnj]

3. True

It also is true that the IWR litmus test was due to politics that stuck. In the ultimate scheme of things, the Democrats should have attempted to change the frame from how people voted in October 2002, when inspectors hadn't been in for 4 years - rendering the intelligence weak versus the decision made to go to war in March 2003. Dean used Kerry's vote to try to prevent Kerry from being considered anti-war, which he was until the Trippi/Dean push to monopolize that category. Dean's attacks in February 2004, were as toxic as anything HRC did last month - and there are Deaniacs who never bothered to consider that they were not true.

The fact is that in 2002 and 2003, Kerry was a voice to not go to war. BLM found this David Frum National Review article. This was how Kerry was viewed then. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3358606

He was clearly angered by Kerry's Georgetown speech. Here are his concluding paragraphs:
"f ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."

Kerry has said hundreds of times that his vote was wrong - but he nearly alone of those who voted that way did speak out in early 2003. He was wrong - but he was never pro-war - which both Clinton and Edwards were.

[YvonneCa]

7. As a Democrat who came of age...

...in the 60's, that is precisely what should have happened after the war in VietNam. Having experienced that trauma, the living are supposed to admit the wrong, learn the lessons, and apply them in our lives going forward. Some of us really thought we had done that until Iraq.

I think Senator Kerry has tried to apply those lessons during his entire career. In his speech on Iraq and Vietnam (our Dissent speech :) ) he describes the trauma and learning of Viet Nam. He even talks about the lesson to apply going forward:

"It's not that some of us were right and some of us were wrong...that's not the lesson." The lesson, he says, is about true patriots. JK say they must defend the right of dissent and HEAR the voices of dissenters. Our democracy is better for it.

As applied to Iraq and the current situation (once people like me get over the very fact that many never learned the true lesson of Viet Nam), that means admitting mistakes is important ....as many Democrats have done. But then the debate needs to shift from that to the lessons learned. And more importantly, we can't use Iraq or the 'war on terrorism' as an excuse to shut down debate...we NEED the debate (both the good and the bad of it) to chart the right course for our country, to get our troops out with honor, to unite our country going forward, and (most importantly) to be the democracy we say we are.

We have to use our debate about Iraq to MAKE SURE THIS TIME that we really learned the lessons of both wars...don't start a war on a pretense, be honest with the American people, use debate to chart the right course (in line with our country's moral values), planning counts, and "NEVER confuse the war with the warrior"...so plan for them, honor them, and take care of them when they come home.

[beachmom]

8. BG article on the funeral. So sad.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/06/15/taunton_honors_fallen_soldier/

Duffy, who would have turned 23 next Sunday, was killed June 4 in Tikrit, when his Army unit was attacked by enemy fire. Mourners described him yesterday as a spirited, fearless, caring person who looked forward to raising a family and becoming a firefighter like his father.

More than 500 people packed the pews at St. Mary's Church, and more lined the route afterward as Duffy's casket proceeded to St. Francis Cemetery.

The funeral drew scores of firefighters in dress uniform, as well as the governor, lieutenant governor, and US Senator John F. Kerry, who eulogized Duffy in a speech filled with anecdotes gleaned from family members.

Kerry recalled the softball game, and how Shanon Duffy had said afterward that words could not explain how she felt.

"There are no words for this, either," Kerry said. "There are no words for a town losing its first son in the war in Iraq, no words for knowing that after Shane headed back for his second tour he would join the 65 other young men and women from across Massachusetts, from Avon to Weymouth, and the 4,092 brave Americans who have given their lives for their country in Iraq."

Kerry described a proud soldier, a Taunton High football player who hid injuries to stay in the game, a devoted friend, a big-hearted family man, a prankster. During his leave, Duffy had kidded his sister, Kelsey, after she made mashed potatoes. "Thanks, but they just weren't as good as dad's," he told her.

Kerry also recounted how Duffy, on that leave, had joined his family to play the video game "Rock Band," one of his favorites. "Shane guitar with the trademark intensity of a man who wanted to be the best in everything he did in life, and at least for that moment he was Eric Clapton," Kerry said. Duffy's wife played the drums, and he held his rosy-cheeked daughter, Mackenzie, up to the microphone to sing along. "If Shane Duffy was intense, he was also tender," Kerry said.

Shanon Duffy read from a school paper about how she loved all her siblings - Keavin Jr., a graduate student, and Kelsey, a college softball player - but especially admired Shane. They chatted online regularly when he was in Iraq, and he always tried to make her laugh. She said he left for his second tour shortly after his daughter was born, last September.

MORE at the link.

The Herald:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_06_15_Solemn_farewell_to_soldier:_Dreams_cut_short_for_Taunton_man_killed_in_Iraq/srvc=home&position=2

A “great Irishman” whose funeral began and ended with bagpipers and mourners in traditional Irish tweed caps, Duffy “would do anything for anyone,” his wife, Jamie Duffy, said. “Your life was one of honor and hard work.”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) did not know Duffy, but came to the funeral after hearing about this “all-American, thoughtful, playful” young man, a “sometimes class clown” who, when he was angry as a child, would go outside, dig a hole and announce, “I’m from China, and I’m going back!”

“No one in all of time has ever been able to soften the blow of a young person taken too soon,” Kerry said at the church. “Parents and grandparents are just not supposed to bury their children. . . . (But) he has come home, again, to a grateful nation.”

Providence Journal:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/SGT_DUFFY_FUNERAL_06-15-08_HVAH5P5_v11.3a4bdaf.html

Kerry, a veteran of the Vietnam War, also paid tribute to Duffy’s service –– and that of an uncle who served in Vietnam, a grandfather who served in World War II and a great-grandfather who served in World War I.

“Shane served,” Kerry said. “He was a warrior on our behalf.”

A soldier read aloud Duffy’s commendations –– a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart, among others.

And after the service, a horse-drawn carriage pulled Duffy’s flag-draped coffin in a march through the city –– around Taunton Green, down Court Street and out to St. Francis Cemetery on North Walker Street.

Firefighters, state police and a bagpipe and drum corps led the march.

Duffy’s friends and family trailed behind the hearse –– Keavin with a walking stick, Keavin Jr. in an Irish knit cap.

Hundreds lined the route: an elderly woman in a wheelchair, old men saluting and a group of boys in Little League uniforms waving flags just outside the Taunton Boys Club.

Watch video at NECN:

http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/Service-honors-fallen-soldier-in-Taunton-Mass/1213482445.html

Edit: Kerryvision also has the story:

http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/06/fallen_heroes_1.html

With this additional piece of information:

Senator Amy Klobuchar filled in for Sen. Kerry at the Washington State Democratic convention, where he was scheduled to speak yesterday.

[Inuca]

4. IMHO

and with all due elitism, the purists are not too smart. People are not pure. Life is not pure. And, paraphrasing Sophocles, not acknowledging one's impurity is a sin of pride. Not acknowledging the dazzling variety of shades of gray in and around us, and instead categorizing everything as either black or white is also a sin of mental laziness.

Also: both quotes, RFK's and Sophocles', are wonderful. I am always amazed when I come across pearls like this from so long ago that remind me yet again how little we have fundamentally changed, if at all. But I guess we strive...

[karynnj]

5. That is true and it ignores that different methods can lead to the change needed

There is a difference between being an activist where calling for exactly the solution you want is effective and being a legislator or President, where doing so at all times may make you completely ineffective. Legislating change is often incremental and refusing to budge will not get people the help that an imperfect, but good bill, would provide. There are times when compromise serves the needs of people better and times where bills must be written, knowing they will fail, to move the discussion in the right direction.

For an example where you need to do what is currently doable, look at health insurance in the 1990s. Part of HRC's problem was that she was too insistent on having the bill that she and Magaziner designed - so she rejected efforts by Bradley and others in the Senate and people in the House. This example is imperfect as HRC's bill was not a purist's bill - but it demonstrates the same lack of flexibility. Bradley said he had sufficient bipartisan support - which was likely true. Even if HRC's plan or a single payer plan, which would also have been unpassable) was better, passing the plan that could have passed would have meant that many people would have been better off for providing health insurance over the last 15 years.

Then look at S-Chip. The original Kerry/Kennedy bill was better than S-CHIP by liberal standards. It was an entitlement, thus it would never have to be re-authorized and it was defined as a federal program - so states could not make it hard for people to get. (In 2000, one complaint against Bush was that he had only a small % of eligible kids on it.) Now, assume that Kennedy (or Kerry, who fought for S-CHIP as a co-sponsor) was a purist and refused to give those major concessions to Hatch. There would now be no S-CHIP which was the biggest expansion of health insurance since the 1960s. HRC was correct that that program was a major accomplishment - just wrong in not giving the bulk of the credit to the Senators. (Oddly, she would have been seen as more likable, more Presidential, and more honest if said that her action pushing Bill showed how as a chief executive she would be receptive to using her position to push Congress to do these things.)

There are also times when losing on principle are worth it. Feingold felt strongly enough to do so on the Patriot Act. That was pure and simple a protest vote to say that there were some major things wrong in the bill - but it was done knowing the bill was going to pass overwhelmingly. The more significant effort was that of those who got the sunset clause included. If you look at election reform, Feingold and Kerry switch places - Feingold worked with McCain on the non-purist bill, Kerry with Wellstone on a purer bill - that gained little support, but became the model for Arizona and Maine. Those states now can act as tests for how it would work and can help future legislation, both in design and in getting support. On another issue, both Kerry and Feingold knew Kerry/Feingold would fail - but they also knew it was the right way to go. Introducing the bill forced a discussion and Kerry actually won that discussion - as seen by the 2006 exit polls and the fact that in about 6 months, it was the Democratic position.

There are other times where taking a position far from the center is worth it. That is when you aim to be a position that someone else can use as leverage to pull the Senate to taking a stand more moderate than Kerry's, but better than would have happened without Kerry arguing further to the left. From something I read in 2004, but can't find now, Kerry's work on coastal ecology did this - and moved the law in the right direction, though his bill itself was not the one passed. His influence on global warming legislation goes beyond his and Snowe's global warming bill which was better than Warner/Leiberman - the work he did internationally may be key to passing a bill that fits the protocol that will come out of Bali - under either a President Obama or (God help us) McCain.

When you look at all the bills written, speeches given, and positions taken, Kerry has more often than most Senators taken positions that have eventually moved things in the right direction. He likely would have more legislation passed if he did not tend to take positions that were more progressive than the mid point of the Senate. Remember Obama's comments on the time from FDR through Nixon and Ford being a time where liberal was the dominant philosophy and Reagan through the present being time where conservative ideas had the upper hand. (Carter being a transition period) Kerry's entire time in the Senate, so far, is when conservatism dominated. Now, as Obama and others postulate, the pendulum is swinging again. Bills like those Kerry failed to pass in pass years, may become doable.

[Inuca]

6. Very informative post and

great analysis. Thanks Karyn.

[wisteria]

9. Wonderful words and thoughts. They and you get to the point of the entire vote and apology. n/t