With a few important exceptions, Kerry's record is decidedly liberal - not for the sake of being liberal, but because he believes they are the right choice (and are).
Beyond that, Kerry always strives to build bridges to get things actually accomplished - rather than two polar extremes shouting at each other.
Read Kerry from 2001 talking about bi-partisanship in foreign relations:
---
The president—and the Congress—will be forced to deal with the inevitable crises beyond our borders and our ongoing international obligations. The question is not whether but how foreign policy issues will be addressed: through a partisan tug-of-war or through bipartisan cooperation among those who believe that U.S. national security and national interests demand that politics stop at the water’s edge. At the risk of challenging conventional wisdom, the prospects for cooperation are greater than one might think.
No longer confronted on the international stage by another global superpower—or in fact any serious challenger—U.S. policymakers are searching for a common vision of the U.S. role in the world.
This search is conducted against a backdrop of ethnic and regional conflicts; emboldened state and nonstate actors; a proliferation of transnational security threats; and increasing global interdependence in economic, environmental, and health care sectors. In this scenario, it is hardly surprising that a myriad of new and often conflicting international priorities have arisen within the U.S. government.
In many of these debates, disagreement does not fall neatly along partisan lines. Though for different reasons, members of Congress in the extremes of both parties have joined forces to form an odd-fellows kind of neo-isolationist movement.
Striking a nationalist tone on the right, they argue that U.S. troops should not be wasting their valuable time and resources keeping the peace in places that are not vital to U.S. national interests.
Reaching a similar conclusion, those on the left argue that multinational organizations are too powerful, the U.S. military too influential, and the U.S. international presence too far flung. Beyond this confluence, the Left and the Right disagree on almost everything else.
Sandwiched between the extremes are the moderates who must necessarily be the target audience for the new Bush administration if bipartisanship is to be forged in foreign policy. The moderates cut across both political parties and, like President George W. Bush, agree on the fundamental idea that the United States must be engaged in the world and meet its obligations to provide constructive leadership.
Without question, the neo-isolationists in both parties will continue their efforts to set limits on U.S. global engagement. The challenge for the Bush administration will be to define a global role for the United States that moderates in both parties can support. In shaping that role, the next president must be guided by three fundamental realities.
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:L3dpESAnS2wJ:www.twq.com/01spring/kerry.pdf+john+kerry+stopping+at+the+water%27s+edge&hl=en&ie=UTF-8