Matthew Iglesias, who I normally enjoy reading, repeated SoS gossip about Kerry, which is absolutely NOT true. And how he said it was really nasty:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/mac_wants_to_be_back_again.phpI’d been assuming that John McCain wouldn’t run for Senate again in 2010. For one thing, defeated presidential nominees tend not to want to hang around the halls of the Senate (witness John Kerry’s desperate quest for a cabinet position).
Even though the post was a couple of days old, I was ready to plunk down a scathing reply, when I found the job had already been done by a couple of posters including some great posts by a poster named "The Phantom". Even some of the more critical comments showed how much respect people had for Kerry.
Benjamin Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Kerry’s done alright for himself since 2004. He spear-headed the legislation to end the HIV Travel Ban, for one thing. And on a totally trivial note, his Democratic Convention speech in Denver was dynamite.
The Phantom Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Wow, bitchy much?
I’d love it if you could back this up:
“For one thing, defeated presidential nominees tend not to want to hang around the halls of the Senate (witness John Kerry’s desperate quest for a cabinet position).”
You can’t, of course, because you’ve been spun silly by Hillary’s people who are trying to clear the way for her as Secretary of State — a job Kerry of course wanted, and was and is more qualified for.
But if Kerry doesn’t leave the Senate, is he going to be unhappy? I don’t think so. Kerry becomes the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, because the current Chair — Joe Biden — is moving on to…where was it again?
Given that Obama’s going to be in office four years, and Biden and Kerry get along very well, and Kerry’s safe for six years, and the Senate is not going to flip before Obama’s first term is up, the way is clear for Kerry to take a very prominent role in shaping and implementing U.S. foreign policy.
But that’s too complicated for a brain like yours, isn’t it? Better to just stick with the bitchy gossip and show your homies how down you are with the latest flak.
John Hamilton Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
For one thing, defeated presidential nominees tend not to want to hang around the halls of the Senate (witness John Kerry’s desperate quest for a cabinet position).
Barry Goldwater spent another eighteen years in the Senate after 1964…
The Phantom Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Speak of the gavel:
More than three decades after he first appeared before the panel as a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran-turned-antiwar protester, Senator John F. Kerry is widely expected to be named the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a position that will give him enormous influence over international relations.
The pending announcement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which congressional aides said could come as early as today, would elevate Kerry to the top of the foreign policy establishment and give him a major role in shaping President-elect Barack Obama’s foreign policy priorities.http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/kerry_expected.htmlI get the Kerry isn’t a ruthless political killer, so he doesn’t get you all hot and bothered. But let’s look at his track record over the past four years.
In 2004 he defeats the antiwar/Dean movement and legitimizes the Democratic party on issues of national security and foreign policy at the height of a disastrous war. He lays out a platform that is almost exactly the platform that Obama runs on in 2008, he gives Obama the keynote address at the convention, and he makes arguments on the pressing issues of the day — national security, energy, pretty much everything — that are not simply relevant, they are right. As a consequence, even though he is defeated, the Democratic brand needs to do no soul-searching or retrenching in the aftermath of his loss.
In 2006, Kerry uses his 3-million-strong email list to help Democrats take both houses of Congress. This becomes part of the Web 2.0 template the Obama campaign follows in 2008. Kerry campaigns tirelessly, donates money, raises money, and does more for the Democratic party than any other person in that cycle, including Hillary Clinton — who, along with John McCain, stabs Kerry in the back after his botched joke. Still, candidates who are strong on foreign policy and national defense (Jim Webb, etc.) play a prominent role in the Republican fall in Congress, which, in turn, precludes a Republican Congress from stage-crafting McCain-led policy solutions going into the 2008 cycle.
In 2008, after Obama’s defeat by Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, John Kerry was the first prominent Democrat off the sidelines on Obama’s behalf. In one move he made it clear that the Democratic party did not belong to the Clintons, and legitimized other supporters who subsequently came forward, including fellow Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.
In sum, over the past four years, no Democrat has done more to put the Democrats in control of Congress, and Kerry was also a critical player in Obama’s rise to the White House. On the heels of the previous commenters reference to Goldwater, it’s only a matter of time before Kerry’s failed candidacy in 2004 is looked at in the same way that Goldwater’s failed candidacy in ‘64 is seen as the moment the Republicans rallied to a cause.
But enough about all that. I’m sure you’ve got more conventional wisdom to spew.
Francisco The Man Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Phantom - Everything you wrote is true. Actually, it’s pretty fucking beautiful.
Kerry doesn’t get the respect he’s due. This is our fault, not his. No, he isn’t perfect. Nobody is. But Yglesias of all people could do more to recognize that Kerry was and is a great leader.
Mason Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Another Kerry fan here. Anyone who saw his 2008 convention speech knows this man has the courage of convictions, just as Al Gore does. He is, however, crippled by a plodding, monotonous speaking style. Which may be a “sin” in a presidential candidate, but certainly isn’t for SecState.
And Phantom duly points out that since the 2004 convention, Kerry has been of great value in getting Obama to the White House.
jeebus Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Kerry hampered his own electoral prospects the same way that Al Gore did: he let himself be “handled” to within an inch of his life, in the service of some phony marketer’s idea of what the American people want in a president. His campaign emphasized his service in the Vietnam war, not his activism against that war when he got home. I would have done just the opposite. If you watch “Going Up River,” the documentary about Kerry’s youth, you start to get a strange feeling: you experience visceral admiration for Kerry … John Kerry becomes downright inspiring.
That John Kerry, the one who fought against the war, is much more compelling than the neutered version of John Kerry we saw throughout the campaign.
Still, homeboy came very close to unseating an incumbent in a time of war and a decent economy. It’s just frustrating because he was so close, I think he actually could have won it.
Homeboy? Hmmm ... I bet you that is the FIRST time the good Senator has been referred to that way. Kind of funny, eh?
The Phantom Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
There’s an ugly strain in left-wing politics which says if only a candidate is smart enough and true enough and courageous enough they will win any election, no matter what the odds. (This is the same ideological strain that is currently destroying the Republican party from the right.)
Well, you can monday morning quarterback Kerry all you want but you should also include relevant facts, like the New York Times witholding its domestic wiretapping story until after the election, or even the influence of 9/11 on the first election after that national tragedy. Remember Karl Rove ordering the warning lights from yellow to orange to red every time the Democrats got too much press coverage? And what about the press — do they get a free pass for ignorning Bush’s abuses, while piling on Kerry and implicitly supporting the swiftboating lies?
Barack Obama won, Kerry lost. But Barack Obama didn’t have to face a sitting war president, he had an economic collapse in his favor, and his opponent turned out to be an idiot in maverick clothing. Given what Kerry faced, and the degree to which he had to rebuild the Democratic brand in the middle of two wars and in the face of a presidency determined to subvert the Constitution, I’m more impressed with Kerry’s loss than I am with Obama’s victory.
Despite what people said during the race, Obama seems not to have created any real swell of new voters. Rather, he simply gained the swing voters that Bush and Rove kept in check with abusive anti-gay-marriage amendments and nationalistic threats about terrorism revisiting our shores. In the 2008 context, how hard was that really?
Still, you get to view history the way you want to. If you need John Kerry, candidate in 2004, to be a coward and a wimp so you can get your steely abs out of bed in the morning, go for it. There’s nothing like tearing someone down to make a body feel so good about being ideologically pure.
Nice to see, Kerry supporter vbdietz on the thread as well:
vbdietz Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Though I don’t disagree with your analysis on McCain, the parenthetical on Kerry was completely uncalled for and IMO, inaccurate. See comments above for Kerry’s accomplishments.
As one who has watched his activities over the last 4 years closely, I can say that he contributes so much to this nation for which most pundits and bloggers fail to give him proper credit. His support of Democratic candidates in 2006 was unmatched. His efforts on behalf of veterans, the environment, and small business are never the stuff of headlines but make a real difference in the lives of so many every-day, middle class people. His support of Obama in the face of withering criticism from Clinton supporters in his own state during a re-election year demonstrated his commitment to doing what he thought was best for the country.
And I haven’t even dug back into the Iran-Contra and BCCI investigations which laid the ground-work for how al Qaeda and its ilk should be dismembered now.
Don’t spout the CW on Kerry, Matt. In this case, it’s not true. And it just makes you look irrelevant.
It's always nice to see the job of defending John Kerry has been completed before I even got there. I especially am impressed by The Phantom.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
