Nice front-paged story on JK and his prospects on HuffPo

[TayTay]

Could use some comment love:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-giordano/kerry-is-the-no-drama-opt_b_142733.html

Thanks!

[Luftmensch067]

1. Done! Pending... n/t

[MBS]

2. Nice comment, luftmensch

There are also a few other decent comments in there. (And, IMHO, the guy from New Mexico is right about Richardson and cronyism/corruption issues)

[karynnj]

3. I still am surprised the "irregularities" in NM in 2004

were never brought up when he ran. It seems clear the problem was caused by Democrats for their own reasons - and he didn't allow a recount even though in at least one Native American area - there were no Kerry votes, and they were Democrats.

[ProSense]

4. Posted a comment.

Great piece.

[Luftmensch067]

5. Great piece, indeed!

Every now and then I have to come back here and say how amazing all of you are! I love the excellent Kerrycrat comments on that post, defending the TRUTH!

[YvonneCa]

6. Thank you. Great article. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

7. Done.

Giving our John some lovin'

[Dr Ron]

8. Post promoting Kerry at Liberal Values

From Liberal Values--quote from the Huffington Post article followed by:


John Kerry has been fighting for change on foreign policy longer than virtually anyone else. While his views on foreign policy and Iraq were greatly distorted, first in the primary battles of 2004 and then by George Bush in the general election campaign, as The New York Times pointed out back in 1992, John Kerry set himself apart from other Democrats by being willing to stand up to the policies of George Bush.

In his speech at Georgetown prior to the start of the Iraq war, John Kerry called on George Bush to not rush to war, predicting the consequences. When George Bush failed to listen to his advice and attacked Iraq, John Kerry protested, saying we needed regime change in the United States. John Kerry’s attempt to bring regime change fell short in 2004, but in both 2004 and 2008 John Kerry worked to advance the career of Barack Obama, enabling us to bring about change beginning in 2009. Barack Obama and John Kerry would make a tremendous team in reversing the disastrous foreign policy of the last eight years and restoring America’s reputation and position of leadership in the world.

Links to several other articles in post at:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=5807

[karynnj]

9. I agree that Kerry's Iraq positions were distorted first by Dean then by Bush

I wonder though if Kerry's long term position that American policy had gone wrong - not just under Bush but before was intentionaly soft pedaled by Kerry. Unlike 2008, 2004 was NOT a season where change could sell. We were after all at 47% thinking we were on the wrong track. Rather than blast the common assumptions that over decades led the US to fund the Contras, arm Bin Laden, etc, he spoke of the US being a good citizen in the world and obeying international law.

His April 2004 speech simply jumped to a plan consistent with a different world view - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=81173&mesg_id=81204 (there is also a very good MTP here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=81173&mesg_id=81173 - That I wish I would have had when the Reilly/Beatty charges were made - though they didn't stick anyway.

This post made me see both 2004 and the SoS/SFRC threads in a different light. I wonder if some of the reluctance of people like Bill Clinton to enthusiastically back Kerry and the reason some people here are so negative on a Secretary of State Kerry is that there is real disagreement and even fear against boldly changing our basic foreign policy. There may be many who see Bush/Cheney as a toxic aberration, but not see a need for fundamental change - which Kerry was for in 1971, the 1980s and the 1990s to the present, changing only in how upfront he put that message.

We don't completely know how closely Obama and Kerry are on foreign policy - the rhetoric sounds very similar - and they may see things in a very similar way. If this is true, than Obama may NEED Kerry as Secretary of State, as he would need a very strong person who really does have the same goals to convincingly persuade leaders that this really is a chance for change. If Obama is really significantly more traditional and change more rhetoric than a core belief - in terms of foreign policy, Kerry is better as chair of SFRC pulling Obama towards changing - in a positive friendly way. (One Richardson poster argued repeatedly that Kerry had too much written on FP and he was too extreme. The odd thing is he/she might be seeing the same thing we saw - but be from the half of the party which saw nothing wrong with arming the Contras.)