Apologies to the group for the biting sarcasm

[politicasista]

in GDP/LBN.

If it came across as reinforcing smears on the good senator, then apologies, that was not the intent. IMO politics is like music or the music business. A popular artist/singer gets all the attention and credit (or overexposure), while a better talented artist/singer can't catch a break or gets overlooked 90% of the time.

I was not bashing him for being a senator from MA, but venting at the lack of respect and props he isn't getting for "discovering" and helping Obama, and others that disrespected Obama (and Kerry for that matter) or jumped on the bandwagon late in the game are being rewarded. Maybe that's the way he and Obama want it to be, but I thought that's what we all want? That's politics, I guess. :shrug:

I just remember all the hate and vitriol he got and still gets, (not just here at DU), for endorsing Obama, but from people (lurked at the Obama/Biden blog) using the same arguments as to why he shouldn't be SOS and to promote or praise other candidates (less qualified than he is).

I know and that he will do good things in and outside of MA, but I hope he will get some due. People need to know that PE Obama has some good people he can count on, and yes, there are Democrats (not just one popular duo..Hint...) that do care about all people and the issues that matter (to paraphrase Kanye West), but they will see what they want to see or believe what they want to believe I guess.

I know it's late (and I don't remember doing it) but congrats to everyone in MA for re-electing Kerry to the Senate. I live in the red state of TN (Obama only carried 6 of the 95 counties), and the state is controlled by the GOP. One bright side is that the county is blue and progressive. :)

I wish Kerry much success and good luck in his new role as SFRC Chair. He will do a nice job (as long as Reid will let him).

I will just be quiet or not e-mail people reminding them about the facts (i.e. LTTE) the next time someone says something bad about him. There is the old saying, sometimes it's best to ignore than engage with people (or anyone that isn't receptive). :hide:

Again, if the comments in GDP came across as "smearing" or reinforcing the smears against Kerry, it was just sarcasm, but isn't fair to people who have been sticking up for since (in DU history 2001-present) he went into public life.


Peace.



:patriot:

[Noisy Democrat]

1. I haven't been following all the arguing

in GDP or even over here, so I don't know what all was said, but I think that if anyone is feeling hurt because they think JK has been dissed because he didn't get SoS, they're misreading the situation. I honestly can't imagine that Obama would've said, "Sorry, I'm saving it for Hillary" if JK had gone for it. I don't think JK wanted to leave the Senate, unless Senate leadership had continued to treat him like a doormat. He got the chairmanship of SFRC, and I think that's what he really wanted. Obviously, Obama can't issue statements saying, "I would've gone for Kerry, but I have to settle for Hillary." And it probably wasn't that cut-and-dried. I don't know anything about how all these deals get worked out, but I do know that Obama has shown many, many signs of having great respect for JK, and has shown repeatedly that he trusts him, and I just don't think JK wanted to be given any position other than what he's got.

It's too bad, though, that some will jump on the opportunity to say that JK missed out, that he got passed over, or that it's a good thing he wasn't picked because he wouldn't have been that good, etc. It's hard for Kerrycrats to hear. But I think JK is exactly where he wants to be right now.

[politicasista]

2. I think that..

it's just a concern that Hillary (and Bill) will try to take all the credit for pushing Obama's agenda and shaping his FP and that Obama will completely ignore Kerry in favor of his SOS. Plus, Reid is still majority leader.

If he is happy where he is, more power to him :). It's just that some just want him to get the respect and recognition he deserves without being undermined by his own party (like he has been for so long). I think the SFRC Chair job is being seen as something that Kerry was easily going to get because Biden and Dodd didn't want it.

[Mass]

3. She wont, which is why I cannot get why she wants it. She become

no more than Condie Rice or Powell. She gets to do what Obama wants her to do, only on foreign policy, to the exclusion of what she spent her last 40 years doing (domestic work about people). If she takes it (and I am still not convinced), it is a great problem out of Obama's side.

In addition remember, Kerry is not only the chair of the Foreign relation, a big role: all you have to see if the effort not to get Feingold there if you do not want to believe if it is a big thing. If it was not, why would have people plotted to see if they could skip Feingold in case Kerry went to the executive. He is also an important player on Commerce, and most senior member on small business (he cant stay n 1 on two committees). If you do not want to believe it is an important role, up to you. The truth is that he gets a lot more freedom that he would have gotten at State, and can do a lot more to shape the foreign relations of the country, particularly as a trusted adviser of Obama (read the article I posted yesterday on what the chair can do. I posted it largely for you and wisteria).

BTW, Biden wanted it. He had said in 2004 that, given a choice between SoS and SFRC chair, he wanted SFRC chair, not State. The only way he was interested in State, he said, was if the Dems did not have the majority in the Senate. So, it is ludicrous to say that Biden did not want it.

I want him to get respect, but I also believe he wants to serve more than being in this for his personal glory. If he was not, he would have ran for president way before he did. Remember he had been in the Senate for 20 years when he ran, a lot more than Biden, Gore, Harkin, and a lot of other players who did not even get close to become President.

Do I want Kerry to get recognition, Yes. Does he get it: not enough to my taste. Does those you think are important players get recognition: except for the Clintons and Obama, and Kennedy at this point:NO. Durbin, Boxer, Feingold, all the progressive idols of the Senate or elsewhere, do not get recognition either. You need to stop beating yourself on this.

ADDED: Here is another article that may make you see what it is about. It is NOT that Kerry is being slighted. It is in fact that Clinton does not have enough seniority in the Senate to play a leadership role and will not have before a very long time. She wants more and for her, more could be SoS, not necessarily for Kerry:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015755.php

MAKING THE SENATE MORE ENTICING TO CLINTON.... If you believe the reports, Hillary Clinton's departure from the Senate to become the Secretary of State is a done deal. I suspect it probably is, but one of the more common questions about the move is why Clinton would want to give up a great, long-term gig in the Senate for a tough, short-term gig in Foggy Bottom.

Part of the problem for Clinton is that her seniority isn't doing her any favors. There's been all kinds of shuffling with the committee chairs since the election, driven in part by Robert Byrd's decision to give up the Appropriations Committee, but Clinton is left without a gavel of her own. It's no one's fault, and she isn't being deliberately slighted, but there hasn't been enough movement on her specific committees to give Clinton a chance to move up. It must be frustrating for someone anxious for a promotion.

...

Note the difference: Kerry has the gavel of one of the big committees. Hillary Clinton not only does not, but she does not have the gavel of a smaller cabinet, like Kerry had. So, it is no surprise she may be restless moving up (by leaving the Senate if needed) why Kerry is not.

[karynnj]

4. Thanks, Mass - this really puts a lot of things in perspective

Thanks especially for the comment on Biden's comments, which I had forgotten. There is a huge difference between being ranking member in 2004 or Chair in 2008.

The difference between Kerry's place in the Senate and HRC's is huge. More than anyone else, Kerry has the best chance to be a very influencial Senator.

[politicasista]

9. Thanks for the perspective

I agree and do not disagree with it.

Roland Martin (of CNN) was on Tom Joyner Monday saying the exact same thing. She has no seniority and that she would have to work with (or under?) Uncle Ted with the health care project (if I am reading that correctly), so she the only option for her would be to accept the SOS job. Tom said that Bill needs to "get his hustle" on and he couldn't see him giving that up.

And thanks for the fact check on Biden. I didn't know he said that about SOS and SFRC Chair. You lay out the differences between both very good. Him being SFRC Chair hasn't sunk in yet faster than others here but it will.

Before Obama ran and won, were (ok, still are) very cynical about politics and politicians. Wish people were more educated about the history of this committee and how the Senate works. We just get marching orders to call them when an important vote (i.e. Alito, FISA) comes up or sign a petition.

And as far as recognition goes, true Durbin, Boxer, Feingold, and other progressives don't get credit or respect due either, so ok, I will stop beating that drum. Just still have a sour taste over what was said at the DNC this summer about Kerry and not one person stood up and defended him, the last Democratic nominee for president that came close to winning (minus Ohio fiasco). It was bad enough that his DNC speech was overlooked (ok, BC and Biden were the headliners/stars that night).

I won't repeat it but I have a feeling it was made to make him look like he was disconnected from the AA community, and because he "lost" so he should go away and just be just another obscure Dem senator. He had (or has) an A+ record, 100% rating on issues that affect AA, but he and it was just dismissed as someone nobody cared about, because he wasn't Bush. That was a disservice to him, but I guess people were too obsessed over BC/HRC, I guess. Maybe in due time, I will let that go, but right now, that still leaves bitterness in the air. Maybe he and Obama wanted it that way (i.e. under the radar) Probably.

Again, thanks for the perspective. I will be there soon. :)

[LittleClarkie]

5. I think that it's more how the media is handling it that's getting to me

First it's leaked that he's pushing for the job. Then the fact that Hillary is considered over him is portrayed as a lack of confidence in Kerry and as a diss.

It's all really unnecessary and should have been a private matter.

Why does it always seem as if Kerry's positives are turned into negatives.

[beachmom]

6. Actually, the media coverage has improved immensely.

First off, to my relief Kerry is not being mentioned in terms of SoS anymore. I consider that a good thing since he is not going to get that job. Nobody is going to rub in that fact anymore. Secondly, he IS being mentioned as Chairman of the SFRC. I have heard him characterized on TV by very MSMy people that he will be a "big influence" on Obama as a foreign policy expert and that he will be a "counterweight" to Clinton. Most people viewing don't know all the intricacies of seniority in the Senate so they see his placement as chairman as a big deal, and not as lesser than SoS. They just know that Kerry is the leader on Capitol Hill on foreign policy. He is put in the category of being part of the Democratic foreign policy team. SoS or Chairman of the SFRC are lateral positions. I was upset by the bad publicity, too, but now that that has passed, the reality of the powerful position he will now be taking is sinking in.

[karynnj]

7. Why does it always seem as if Kerry's positives are turned into negatives.? It's the Rovian way!

I think because vested interests want them to be. This is not new - and the remarkable thing is that he has succeeded to the level he has. Why would they ( the Rw, the Clintons, the media) do that now? My guess is that they see him as a potential future voice against the way they want to go. (Why? Kerry genuinely wants change.)

My guess is that Obama, on foreign policy, is still somewhat an unknown to them - and to us. There are high level speeches that were fantastic, but it is easy to read more into his words than was there or to interpret them the way you want them to be. He will be the one who really sets policy. But, public opinion will matter to some degree - and they want voices they are comfortable with - and many were comfortable with the Bill Clinton, who did not radically change foreign policy. What interests me is that many of the SERIOUS FOREIGN POLICY writers found no problem with the idea of Kerry as SoS. It might be those positive early comments that started the leaks saying transition people though Kerry too weak. These were (pretty obviously) the Clinton people and those comments were picked up by media people who likely know nothing more on fp than what was on their teleprompters.

Now, if stories are true - the leaking Clinton transition people knew that HRC was the choice - so why leak these attacks. One reason could be that this is what Clinton people do - and they are still angry at Kerry and Richardson. A second is that they would like to diminish Kerry's independent voice on foreign policy. There are three ways he can influence foreign policy - 1) via the SFRC Some times via legislation and also getting facts out through the committee 2) Being a trusted adviser of Obama and 3) influencing public opinion - hopefully in support of something Obama wants that he agrees with.

The Clintons KNOW that Kerry can move public opinion - he did it with little help in 2004 and was very very good in 2008. They know exactly how good he was in after he endorsed. There was much more push back on Bill's Iraq nonsense by surrogate Kerry than the campaign had before. Clinton had more star power and media behind him, but Kerry had the moral credibility to call him on "abusing the truth". Obama knows - or Kerry would not have been the top foreign policy surrogate. (I'm not including the VP - whose role was different) Kerry was highly praised for that work.

The good thing is that the Clintons can't change 1 and 2. As to 3, the fact that none (as far as I saw) of the serious fp writers, even those who were not in favor of JK, said he was not good on foreign policy. Not to mention the SFRC articles have been really amazing - the BG one http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/20/kerry_poised_to_cap_long_journey/ was amazing. It read like JK group posts - even mentioning things like his diplomacy on the Cambodian war crimes tribunal and going to Bali.

[JI7]

8. most people are saying positive things about Kerry

in fact it's someone who claims to support Kerry who is being most negative. and based on some of the stuff i'm seeing they might be heading for a tombstone.

[politicasista]

10. That would be really

sad.

[JI7]

11. i don't think it would be sad

if Kerry were elected and someone was saying he was the same as Bush based on someone he might have talked to then i would want them tombstoned also.

now this person is saying they regret voting for Obama. well FUCK THEM. i'm getting tired of this shit. and this person was such a defender of the racism of Imus also. yet Obama gets advice from Scowcroft and they are outraged.

[politicasista]

12. I would too, but we are talking

about a former poster.