Reply #8: The frustration I have with that article is that with respect to Kerry it is just

[karynnj]

plain wrong. This time in 2005, Kerry was the strongest opponent to Bush - grilling Rice in the SFRC. He also was as close to a shadow President as we have ever had - and in spite of the media - he had accomplishments. The biggest being that the Iraq Study group pretty much took Kerry's 2005 Iraq plan as theirs and the entire party took a variation of Kerry/Feingold. Compared to Mr "No earmarks", Kerry articulated a Democratic alternative.

As to Obama - I really don't get it, though your post a few months ago on how he treated early Chicago supporters suggested that that is how he is. It does bother me that he had Kerry act as an attack dog - which he did extremely well - knowing that Kerry risked hurting his own reputation and that he earned the Clinton's enmity doing so. Not to mention, it led to the obnoxious O'Reilly challenge. Yet, though there have been comments by Obama staff- that Obama respects his opinions etc, Obama has not done or said one thing to himself show that. Obama made a big production of meeting with Gore - is there any reason that meeting wasn't Gore and Kerry? Or, could he have mentioned himself at some point, Kerry's representing him at Poznan? Or, in his thank yous at the convention - when he thanked both Clintons and Gore - would it have been hard to add Kerry?

As to being involved on the energy solutions, I assume that Kerry will be, even if Pickens is involved - and that he is far more thick skinned than I could ever be. It still hurts me that the party where almost everyone had Clinton's back on his despicable actions with Monica, doesn't really have Kerry's on his laudable war service.