decent article about Sen Kerry in WaPo

The same crap about being seen aloof by his Senate colleagues. The implication he is a loser (not VP for Gore, not President, not SoS in 2008), and of course, once again, the fact that he only rose in the Senate after Ted passed away.

Frankly, I do not think there is nothing new here, except the obvious, Democratic Senators would like to see one of them nominated (duh) and the rehashed same ideas on how the Senate sees Kerry.

I find particularly surprised that they present this as seen from Kerry's POV. He refused to be interviewed and there is no quote, even unsourced, from people close to him (staffers, friends).

I saw the gallery, and it is pure BS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/john-kerry-secretary-of-state_n_2241367.html

As President Barack Obama's presumed nomination of Susan Rice for secretary of state continues to face controversy over the administration's handling of the consulate attack in Benghazi, there is growing concern among top Democrats that Obama may turn to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) as his fallback choice.

...

... Democrats said they worry that Republicans may be using the secretary of state fight as a roundabout way to regain a Senate seat the GOP lost this fall, when Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was defeated by Elizabeth Warren. The anti-Rice gambit, some Democrats said, has the feel of a Republican long con.

"I don’t doubt that at all in terms of their motives," said Tad Devine, a longtime Democratic strategist who served as a senior adviser to Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "I think they are trying to come down from 55 to get to 50 as fast as they can in the Senate."

In back channels, these concerns are making their way to the top levels of the administration. Top Senate Democrats have expressed concerns to the White House about a possible special election for a Senate seat in Massachusetts, a Democratic source close to conversation told The Huffington Post. Another Democratic source -- who, like the first, would only discuss sensitive conversations on condition of anonymity -- confirmed that concerns were expressed. A third source added that leaders in the Senate also said they would be comfortable with a prospective Kerry nomination if it is clear that the White House is invested in a subsequent special election.

Isn't Schumer's people tight with Sam Stein? Just sayin' ....

" Running a viable presidential campaign for your party's nomination, as both Clinton and Kerry did, immediately puts a public figure in a special political class. Winning the Democratic nomination, as Kerry did, and then coming within 2.4 percentage points of besting President George W. Bush is an even more bankable achievement.

Kerry's national political career is just the tip of a vast iceberg-sized Washington career. Kerry began his 27 years in the Senate by convincing Washington graybeards to launch the Iran-Contra hearings. And, as a member and now-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has been at the center of American foreign policy ever since.

Rice served eight distinguished years as a National Security Council staffer and in the sub-cabinet of President Clinton. And Rice has been a star during her four years as UN ambassador. We'll take Obama's word that she would be good secretary of state.

But by any calculation, Kerry has the higher international profile and the broader range of hands-on experience. Why should America settle for second best?"


Read more: http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/148480-case-for-john-kerry/#ixzz2EEoGiTb1