Positive Time article - John Kerry: Back in the Hunt

[karynnj]

On a hot August afternoon in 2008, Ted Kennedy took John Kerry sailing on his 50-ft. schooner, the Mya.It was a perfect day on the water, sunny with the occasional cotton-ball cloud riding the strong winds over the family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. With the Mya's blue hull moving at a good clip, Kennedy turned to his old friend with reminiscences of failed campaigns past: Kennedy's bid for the presidency in 1980 and Kerry's in 2004. What concerned Kennedy, who three months earlier had learned he had a malignant brain tumor, was legacy — Kerry's legacy.

John, you're where I was after I decided I wouldn't run for President," Kennedy said. "You've got the seniority. You've got the network around the country. You've got all the benefits of having campaigned around the country. You've got 20 years ahead of you in the Senate if you want it, and now no one can question your motives. You can write your own ticket here." (See the top 10 campaign ads of all time.)

Kerry appears to have taken that advice to heart. Over the past year, the junior Senator from Massachusetts has become the man to see. Health-care talks are stalling? Kerry's got a way to fix the financing. The climate-change bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate? Kerry's leading the negotiations. And as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he has stepped out overseas — and across the aisle in the Senate — to get things done. In a town where second acts are rare, Kerry, 65, has found a new groove. "I think," Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana says, "at least as I have watched him, he does have a great deal more vigor and enthusiasm."
<skip>
But it is as Foreign Relations chairman that Kerry has become most influential. A relationship with Syrian President Bashar Assad, forged in 2005, helped Kerry play the key role in thawing U.S.-Syrian relations after the White House renewed Bush-era sanctions on Damascus in May. With Lugar, he shepherded a $1.5 billion nonmilitary-aid package to Pakistan last spring. His support is also vital to Obama's surge strategy in Afghanistan; though he voted to send more troops earlier this year, Kerry now wonders whether the Administration has a clear agenda there. "I'm very concerned about Afghanistan's footprint," he says. "The breadth of challenges that we face there, with police, with governance, corruption, narcotics, tribalism, other kinds of things ... may be well beyond the narrower definition the President gave the mission." Kerry plans to hold hearings in the fall, in part to force the White House to clarify its goals.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917460,00.html

Pretty good article. Only quibble I have is how I saw Kerry in 2005 is about 189 degrees different than they do. I think the reason he did not commit to running for Senate again was that he couldn't run for both President and Senate. But, at least they do see him as important now.

[beachmom]

1. I haven't read it yet, but I hope this is also in the print version.

Then my parents might believe me that JK has been doing a great job.

[karynnj]

2. Interesting point - I hope they do include it in the print edition.

I like that they argue he is a "go to" guy and give several examples where he is working with Republicans.

[beachmom]

3. Well, I'm a subscriber (see, guys, I really do pay for journalism!), and

I should receive it hopefully late tomorrow afternoon (although sometimes it doesn't come until Sat.). The look of the article strikes me as a print article, but I will report back if it's in the new print issue.

[TayTay]

4. Thank you, once again, Sen. Kennedy

If ever there was a "happy warrior" in politics, it's Uncle Teddy.

There is news out today that our beloved Senator Kennedy is trying to get the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (God save it!) to add a line or two to the legislation about succession to seats in the US Senate. This line would allow for an interim person to hold the US Senate seat for 5 months until a special election can be held and the people can choose their representative to the US Senate. I think this is a splendid idea and preserves both my right to choose my elected officials and my right to have representation in the Senate during discussion of and votes on key issues. Bravo Senator for thinking of me and other Bay State voters at this time.

And please, please, spare a second to think about Sen. Kerry here. I don't think Sen. Kennedy has a better or more devoted friend in the world than Sen. Kerry. There is no one who reveres what Sen. Kennedy has done and what he has meant to both the nation and Massachusetts more than John Kerry. Short of family, I would also venture a cheekish guess that there is no one who fought harder against the idea that Sen. Kennedy might succumb to his illness and leave us. I have seen the sadness over this. That Sen. Kerry has had to participate in discussions over what happens when Teddy dies is a very cruel twist of fate. (Seriously, think about this if it were a great friend in your own life that we were discussing and you had to be smacked in the face and told to get others ready for the replacement of your friend. We would do it, but with mourning in our hearts.)

Thank you to both of my hard-working Senators. God I am so lucky to have you both.

[karynnj]

7. It is clearly mutual - going both ways

I assume Kerry will never forget Kennedy backing him for President in 2005 and 2006 when most of the party was treating him incredibly badly and working to clear the way for Hillary Clinton to be given the nomination on a silver platter. Backing Kerry in 2004 might have been political, but 2005 and 2006 were above and beyond anything remotely asked of a Senior Senator for his Junior Senator. I remember Teddy's wonderful words when in February 2005, Kerry was given an award at the Kennedy Center - where Kennedy suggested - likely for the first time in public- that Kerry could still be what he hoped Kerry would have been in 2005 - his President. It is amazing to think their real relationship goes all the way back to 1971.

Those discussions likely had to be tough.

[wisteria]

8. I think that Senator Kennedy is being practical, but he still has a lot of fight left in him.

He just has to reserve his strength for the tougher battles. I think what Senator Kennedy proposes is very fair. I still have faith that he will be able to vote on a new health care bill himself.

[TayTay]

5. BTW, Bravo Senitah for this paht

(well, it's what I would sound like if I saw him at a Town Meeting.)

But it is as Foreign Relations chairman that Kerry has become most influential. A relationship with Syrian President Bashar Assad, forged in 2005, helped Kerry play the key role in thawing U.S.-Syrian relations after the White House renewed Bush-era sanctions on Damascus in May. With Lugar, he shepherded a $1.5 billion nonmilitary-aid package to Pakistan last spring. His support is also vital to Obama's surge strategy in Afghanistan; though he voted to send more troops earlier this year, Kerry now wonders whether the Administration has a clear agenda there. "I'm very concerned about Afghanistan's footprint," he says. "The breadth of challenges that we face there, with police, with governance, corruption, narcotics, tribalism, other kinds of things ... may be well beyond the narrower definition the President gave the mission." Kerry plans to hold hearings in the fall, in part to force the White House to clarify its goals.

Awesome. Just awesome. Now that is good work for the nation.

And this:

Even Kerry's family life has been gapping up. His daughter Vanessa is getting married in October, and he has thrown himself rather dramatically into wedding-planning, in part because his ex-wife Julia Thorne, Vanessa's mother, died of cancer in 2006. (Walking back to his office from the Senate floor recently, Kerry held forth at length about the coming nuptials and his hopes of persuading his daughter to do a Red Sox bridal-party outing.)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A Red Sox bridal-party outing. OMFG! Thank you to the good Senitah from MA. (Well, he is hopeful that, despite current Red Sox problems, there WILL BE an October Red Sox game at the Fens.) Wicked smaht Senitah indeed.

[wisteria]

9. Good work on the part of Senator Kerry.

As for the upcoming wedding, I am surprised he is so involved. I would think many men would just run the other way over wedding details. So, good for him for being such a good sport.

[TayTay]

11. The Senator and his daughter are very close

I have seen a lot of pictures of them laughing together. Vanessa is obviously devoted to her Dad and he returns the favor. he is, as my own father would say, "the apple of his eye." It shows.

[karynnj]

13. It really does show in the pictures and in the video

of them showing up to vote in Boston http://www.johnkerry.com/multimedia/entry/senator_kerry_votes_early/

Vanessa seems to have a lot in common with her dad.

[wisteria]

6. It is nice to see decent articles on Senator kerry that are somewhat respectful.

I don't necessarily agree with the writer's assessment of 2005-2006, but this person did not follow the senator since the 2004 loss and just probably got bits and pieces of info from others to fill in the time frame.
Time Magazine has not been kind to Kerry in the past. I actually canceled my subscription because of their bias during the years of 2000-2007. At that time I wrote them and told them I wasn't going to pay them money for them to write trash about people I admired.

[TayTay]

10. 2005 was an awful year.

Just awful. The "sunshine patriots" had all deserted for the next big thing. The loss was hung on just one person and the salt in the wound was the continuing death tolls in a war that was being waged just to prove it had been the right war. (The then Admin could not admit their mistakes and take responsibility for them. The mistakes and the deaths were being brushed under the rug in hopes that the "resolution" of the Commander in Chief would be the only thing people saw. "We have a resolute President who doesn't change his mind." That was NOT a good thing.)

Anyone who was there in 2005 -08 for the good Senator is a real friend. He knows that. He remembers it because it really stood out. In a sea of people who wanted him to "go away" there was this group of people who shared their laughs, their hopes and their determination with him. He wrote me once to say that he would never forget that. (And the people who showed up at events over the years and identified themselves as Internet supporters know that too. They got a reaction.) Maybe, contrary to what my mother taught me, hard times don't always make hard people. Maybe they make friendships too. And boy, oh boy, was it ever needed then and the gratitude that it was there is real and continues to this day.

[wisteria]

12. Senator Kerry is a rare and unique politician.

I will always be grateful for the times he stuck his neck out to support grassroots ideals. He took a lot of beatings for his unpopular positions and for ours. I will always remember the gatherings, when he took the time to acknowledge us and thank us for supporting him. Tay, he didn't have to do this, I would have supported him anyway, but these gestures made him more human, caring and compassionate to me. We all lost out when Kerry didn't win the presidency, but we move on, and he moved on, and is redefining how best he can serve this country. I believe for him, it was and always will be, country first.

[beachmom]

18. I don't think there was an MSM magazine you could subscribe to

that DIDN'T trash Sen. Kerry, particularly post 2004. In fact, the others were worse. This was simply a cycle one had to endure.

This article represents a turning point. MSMland has woken up to what a great Senator John Kerry is. And even that he is a good Dad, and you know, a human being. I was amused by this from my Senator:

When a Sudanese delegation came to town, Senator Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican who has been involved in Darfur issues, got invited to dinner. "I can't recall Senator Kerry and I in the same room hardly before that ... He has been solicitous of us participating; I haven't seen any standoffishness."

What Johnny was really saying: Well, I didn't know John Kerry at all, and when I finally did get to know him, well, um, gee: he wasn't standoffish at all!! Since the Right and the MSM told me that he was standoffish, apparently he has completely changed his personality within a couple of years!!

I also cannot believe the quote from some other Senator that he talked about leaving the Senate. Sorry, I don't buy that, except maybe just throwing it out there when he was having a bad day. I never sensed that he was contemplating leaving UNLESS it was for another job.

[karynnj]

25. Very true - saying with back up that he is a great Senator, father, and person

is something that happens very rarely for anyone, especially when there is no major anticipated change in status - such as becoming the nominee, winning an election, or retiring. The comments by the Republican Senators are really good.

Like you, I don't buy that he thought of leaving the Senate, other than for the Presidency. It could have been a frustrated comment or it could have been that he was coy on the question of running for Senate - because he had to be - because he couldn't run for both.

I realize that it is a nit compared to the validation on everything important, but it understates his role in 2005 and 2006 in leading what otherwise would have been a demoralized country. As he said in his 2008 victory speech, much of what he and people with him did laid the groundwork for Obama. The wary looks might have also been towards Democrats desperately trying to deny him a voice, while he sent out emails rallying people and leading many of the real fights in the Senate. But, the most likely way that perception will ever be change is if Kerry does, like Kennedy, be seen as a great Senator or statesman. As it is, this strikes down many lies he has always had to deal with, the worst and likely the most inaccurate being that he was not that accomplished as a legislator.

[ProSense]

14. It's a really nice article.

Senator Kerry is a treasure.

[sandnsea]

15. Hope he's not really agonizing over 2004

There may have been some structural things that could have been more useful. Obama's internet structure was ten times Kerry's, for instance. But ultimately, people seem to vote their comfort level and they were comfortable with Bush. Look at how many of them are so easily manipulated on health care. We've got a stupid country with a stupid media that gives ignorance more ink than truth. Until that changes, politicians like Kerry are never going to stand a chance.

[wisteria]

16. He came damn close though, and some of us still believe he really won.

But, you are correct when you state,"We've got a stupid country with a stupid media that gives ignorance more ink than truth." What a shame it continues to be this way.

[sandnsea]

17. True enough

Not standing a chance was an extreme choice of words. Maybe I should have said something more like, have their work cut out for them. I actually meant that I don't think anybody could have done better than him because of the circumstances stacked against an intellectual politician. Until something is done about the sorry state of the media and the revisionism of history and the economy, I just don't see how a campaign based on logic and reason will work as well as a movement based campaign.

[karynnj]

19. I actually think Kerry's dignified, intellectual, thoughtful persona likely did better than

most, if not all, would have done. It is true that the media seems to favor extroverts, but in 2004, had the rallies been covered - as Bill Clinton's were - Kerry would have not been seen as remote or aloof. In addition, there was something calming and mature about his approach to problems.

I don't think any Democrat could have won 2004. A large part of the media willingly repeated every Republican attack uncritically. There are few Democrats with the clean past Kerry really has. All they could have attacked was his protesting. But, had they attacked that, it would have given Kerry the chance to address it as Obama did the race issue. Going Upriver was clearly intended to do just that. Because, this was controversial among some populations because it had been distorted. Had it been attacked, what he really did could have been put in context. They had to make stuff up.

In 2004, a movement based campaign - for anyone - would not have worked. The obvious movement was the anti-war movement and they were a mixed blessing - alienating many people. I agree with you that Obama made better use of the internet, but part of that was what everyone learned from 2004 - 2008. It also was that 2008 was a year of change, where 2004 was not. When people are scared of change - as many traumatized by fear were in 2004 - movements are feared as movements are always for change.

Prosense posted some models that looked at things like the economy and how people perceived the country going. Those models showed Bush easily being re-elected. This makes sense as the economy was improving and most people, even many opposed to Iraq, thought we were doing the right thing - possibly because Bush never told the truth on what he intended. Even in the official results, Kerry did far better than predicted. Obama actually under preformed what would be expected - which could be due to inherent racism. But, this is NOT how people look at elections. Events are rewritten in people's minds to conform to the results. So, a campaign that did many things right is seen as bad and a campaign (1992)where there actually were many fumbles, but we won against a President at 33% gets a movie that creates a myth on how they fought back.

[sandnsea]

24. Obama is cool, intellectual and thoughtful

And his campaign platform was basically a rerun of 2004. Very little was substantively different. Obviously he had a number of things in his corner, Michelle, two cute little kids, great speaking skills. Still, bottom line is that he harnassed the hunger for change that existed in 2004 that Kerry didn't quite cultivate. Part of that change is empowerment which Obama managed to channel with the internet. It isn't quite true that those strategies were learned after 2004. Much of what Obama did was recommended in 2004 - and ignored.

Regardless, my point is the same. In order to unseat a sitting President or controlling political party, a movement is needed. A movement of truth with Carter, a new economy with Reagan, and again with Clinton, and then integrity with Bush. People have to be herded and nothing herds them like a movement of change.

[karynnj]

26. I disagree that there was the same desire for change in 2004

It is true that on the left there was, but that was simply not enough. In 2008, over 80% of the country said that we were going in the wrong direction. In 2004, one poll in late October found that 59% said that the country was doing very well or fairly well. That is an enormous change.

I am not discounting that Obama was an outstanding candidate. I also did see that he really did excite people, especially college aged people, more than Kerry did. I think that is why he beat HRC in the primary.

I think that most of the movements you refer to were almost campaign slogans or or retrospective canonical explanation of a win that happened. Had Kerry won, there would been a "reason" assigned, such as a new foreign policy (one he called for since 1971). Carter was attractive because there already was a rejection of Nixon and everyone associated with him. With Clinton, it was a rejection of Bush, who was at 33% as much as Clinton leading a movement.

Although Kerry's people could have done more on the internet, he actually did many things that hadn't been done before by the nominee. He had the first blog and it was great. It provided a huge amount of information on where he was, what he did, and there were links to coverage. I never before thought CSPAN would be my favorite channel. They also did organize local people for things like debate watching parties and there was the ability to phonebank in swing states. I don't think any of these things existed in the Gore campaign, though they were used in the 2004 primaries.

You were one of the people way out in the forefront, so it had to be frustrating to you to see that more could be done that wasn't. The fact though is that they had made a huge jump from what had been the norm. Many of the Obama people were Kerry people and even those who weren't could use what worked in 2004 and what worked in 2005 and 2006. They started from a different base and in an environment that had itself evolved. Imagine how Kerry could have used Youtube. As important as internet is, mass media is more important and Obama had a more level playing field than Kerry did.

More than what they did on the internet, part of what made campaigns seem like movements, was the reporting of ever increasing in size rallies and the emotion in them. Part of what helped Clinton after the conventions, was the positive coverage of the energized smiling candidate (while Bush referred to them as Bozo and Ozone man). In 2004, it really hurt Kerry that very little of his rallies made the network or even cable news. That is part of the reason some said they did not hear his message. Had the media covered Kerry's LARGER crowds as they did Clinton's, it could have made a difference.

[Luftmensch067]

28. I agree with everything here

But ESPECIALLY the part about the rallies not being covered! We, who watched them on CSPAN, knew about the huge, passionate crowds, saw them fighting to shake JK's hand in the ropeline, saw him being totally present and connected with every person there, saw how he galvanized each and every rally with the force of his ideals. If you didn't watch CSPAN, you probably thought he was just sitting home waiting for Election Day. All that crisscrossing of the country might just as well not have happened! At the time, because his message was only getting through to each crowd in each city/town, not being broadcast via the MSM, I compared his campaign to a 19th century campaign, where you can only reach the people in person, one crowd at a time. There was no MSM acknowledgement of how he wore himself to skin and bones traveling to every corner of the nation, every day. If that JK had been shown, there would have been no contest, IMO.

[sandnsea]

31. It would have been nice if it had been shown

Because then it would have looked like a movement. Maybe somebody would have created a story to go with the crowds. Asked them all what was motivating them to show up for a man who was supposed to be wooden, uncharismatic, and blueblooded. All we got was anti-Bush rhetoric, which is coincidentally an indication a lot of people wanted change. If the media had told the truth about the Bushies just the teensiest bit, the outrage in 2004 would have looked a lot more like 2008.

[karynnj]

32. I agree completely

I also found it amazing that they could call a man who:

1) Pretty much captured the attention of many people not against the war in 1971 and compelled them to listen and who managed to lead a group of very angry vets and keep them focused and non-violent for a couple of days. Both required an exceptional charismatic leader.

2) Won the primary nomination when he had either few or no media supporters. The media was SO hostile, you had opinion pieces from the NYT to Molly Irvins making the case for John Edwards! in late February 2004. That he also had little party support means he really did it the hard way.

[blm]

29. Obama didn't have majority of bestknown Dems siding WITH Bush's war policies in 2008.

In fact, by Nov2006 most wellknown Dems who stood solidly WITH Bush in 2004 were distancing themselves or beginning to distance themselves from Bush's war decisions.

I think that aspect of 2004 is too easily ignored. I highly doubt Obama would have won if he were the nominee in 2004. And I highly doubt Kerry would have lost had he been the nominee in 2008.

[karynnj]

34. I agree on all these things

Can you imagine the Kerry/McCain debates? Or the Obama/Palin ones? (yes, I assume he would have picked Obama, we know for sure 2 people he would not have picked.)

[sandnsea]

35. Because "we've got a stupid country with a stupid media"

that gives ignorance more ink than truth. Until that changes, politicians like Kerry are... going to have their work cut out for them.

If the media told the truth about Bush's war policies, no Dems would have been siding with him as was proven by 2008 when more of the truth had come out. The only way to get around that is with a movement, which is not the only reason Obama won in 2008, but it sure helped.

I doubt Obama could have won as the nominee in 2004 because he was completely unknown. No candidate could have won with the brain-dead media. Look what they're doing to health care reform. Obama will have to create a movement to get it passed with any kind of political enthusiasm, which seems to be the only thing that can get around the media at this point in time.

[beachmom]

20. It would have been difficult for anyone (agreed). Did you guys see what Tom Ridge said?

Glenn Greenwald's column is good, but he does criticize Kerry here (unfairly, in my view) for not backing Dean who in August 2004 accused the Bush Admin. of manipulating terror alerts for political purposes. Thing is, back then there was no evidence, nobody coming forward. It was a case of either you believed it or you didn't believe it. And the country was still going through its "fascism of fear" period, where country stars who dared to criticize the President had their music banned from radio and burned at hate rallies. So, the idea that Kerry could be out front on this stuff WHILE running for POTUS is yet another example of why Glenn's "Fringe Leftist Losers" don't catch a break from the MSM. Hey, maybe if you guys didn't act like jerks all the time you could get more respect when you're right!! Still, what Glenn says is overall true:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/20/ambinder/

I also think this quote from Atrios is a grave and true statement about what the Bush Administration was in the business of:

And just so it's clear: using the threat of terrorism to try to achieve political goals is, you know, what terrorists do.

Which is why OBL wanted Bush re-elected. They had a good thing going for a while, those two. When OBL's star faded, so did Bush's.

[wisteria]

21. It was more about power than about terrorism, although the analogy fits.

And, as for Kerry not backing Dean, I can not fault him for this. You can go around accusing the administration without having definite proof. If Kerry would have said anything he would have been perceived as careless and unprofessional.

[karynnj]

23. Not only is that true,

it is quite possible that Dean, who did act as a surrogate for Kerry was saying this both because he believed it true and because Kerry couldn't.

Had Kerry done so, you can imagine the result - he would have been asked to provide proof, which did not exist. He likely would then have been accused of saying Bush was terrorizing the American people, which though true, was not believed by anyone but the left. It would have hurt, not helped. Dean saying it on the other hand did raise the question effectively without that consequence. The odd thing is that these SAME people ignore that in 2008, KERRY could say things that they knew Obama couldn't.

[beachmom]

27. You know you have a good point. Dean put himself out there to

get that message out, then Kerry denied it. Still, the message was out there. Mission accomplished. I certainly thought the Bush Administration was hell bent on "scaring up votes". And it worked.

[blm]

30. By August 2004 I believe Kerry trusted Dean to be his surrogate far more than most of the wellknown

Dem crowd who always appeared publicly to be standing more with Bush than Kerry.

[sandnsea]

22. Agree with that - evidence

I can't tell you how many times I've typed that word in the last 6 years. The same people who can howl for the release of Leonard Peltier because of a supposed lack of evidence become mystified when a Presidential candidate asks for evidence before bringing down the entire government. Bizarre thinking.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[beachmom]

36. It's in the print copy!!! Just arrived in the mail today.

:) :) :)

[karynnj]

37. yay, Thanks for telling us

It is so easy to forget that not everything online makes the cut.

[ObamaKerryDem]

38. Wonderful article!

I love the raw yet ultimately positive perspective it gives us of the Senator--on both a political and more personal level--since the '04 race, one that is all too often overlooked by many in the press and punditry. I loved his take on '04 (so true. He really did exceptionally well for the circumstances, which IMO--and seemingly of many others--were far from a level playing field in many ways..) and the handwritten note to him from President Obama. In many ways, Senator Kerry shares in the responsibility for his rise, so it's great to see it acknowledged, by the person whose acknowledgement on the subject counts most! :D

I loved the part with him and Senator Kennedy. I think Kerry is poised to follow in his footsteps, though hopefully not too soon..:(

On a lighter note, I also loved the part with him helping Vanessa with the wedding planning. I think it's adorable. They seem so close! :)

[ObamaKerryDem]

39. Awesome! Will definitely pick up a copy! :D