Sen. John Kerry Undergoing 2nd Hip Replacement

[Mass]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9471729

Sen. John Kerry Undergoing 2nd Hip Replacement
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts undergoing 2nd hip replacement; 1st hip surgery was in August
BOSTON January 4, 2010 (AP)


Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts is undergoing a second hip replacement.

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee will have his left hip replaced Monday at Massachusetts General Hospital. His right hip was replaced in August.

Kerry spokesman David Wade tells The Associated Press that Dr. Dennis Burke achieved such good results the first time that Kerry decided to have his other hip replaced. In both cases, the joints had become arthritic and inflexible from age and athletic activity.

Wade says the 66-year-old Kerry decided to have the operation now to ensure "he'd be back on his feet for the legislative period later this month."

That could include a vote on a national health care plan that will require all 60 Democratic Senate votes.

Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz, is scheduled to resume breast cancer treatment this month.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[karynnj]

1. This shows that the stories of Kerry going to Iran this recess were completely bogus

The recuperation period (even for JK) will take most, if not all, the time before they resume - and the BG reported that this was happening last fall.

[beachmom]

2. Not really. It shows a high game of chess is being played. nt

[wisteria]

5. If that is true, I don't understand why Kerry would float his name out there

instead of Clinton or even Biden. Why would he set himself up for the RW reticule? I can't imagine him allowing himself to be a patsy for the administrations test balloon.

[beachmom]

6. Who cares about what the right wing think? The reason it was Kerry and

not Clinton or Biden is that they are in the Obama Administration. Kerry is an independent actor.

Again, are we really saying that Foreign Policy, the Boston Globe, the NEWS pages of the Wall Street Journal, CBS News ALL are printing a lie? That they didn't double check with other sources? To me, they would not have printed it if they hadn't thought it was legit. Plus, are we arguing that the Iran regime and some right wing source are in cahoots to embarrass Kerry? Seriously, Kerry isn't THAT important for the wingers and Iranians to get together.

Plus, if you read the Globe article in the other thread, Kerry's spokesman basically dodged the question. Hardly a definitive denial.

Finally, Kerry is a risk taker. He isn't in the Senate to play it safe. This actually sounds like something he would do.

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. Sorry, Beachmom

I don't agree with your assumption. If anything I would believe that some don't want JK near the FP scene, and I would think that it was not the right but people in the bubble and I will say it the Clinton bubble, may be the reason for this story. There was never a source named to this story so I guess everyone will assume what they want. JK had always planned on another hip replacement and this was the only time that he could do it, to me Iran was never on his agenda. JMO.

[beachmom]

9. Just tweeted from the Dept. of State:

http://twitter.com/dipnote

Secretary Clinton: The Obama Administration remains open to negotiating with #Iran over its nuclear program.

And, why is Kerry's spokesman so coy?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/05/iran_likely_to_deny_kerry_bid_to_visit/

His spokesman, Frederick Jones, said yesterday that “Kerry has no plans to travel to Iran and we never discuss the Senator’s diplomatic correspondence.’’

I mean I am open to being proven wrong but I tend to take things at face value until new evidence shows up that shows otherwise. That new evidence would have been an uniequivocal denial from Kerry. The above quote, in fact, leads me to believe that he did float the idea. The other issue is that there is no way Kerry could have done this without the Administration's tacit approval. So if Clinton is mobbing Kerry, she is only undermining what the Administration has been working toward AND what she continues to say herself: negotiating with Iran.

[wisteria]

8. The other papers did not pick it up until it became apparent they had to say something.

If the plan was to show the Iranian government as unwilling to talk and if they were going to turn someone down-wouldn't it make more sense if it were Clinton or Biden instead of Kerry? Their names would have more impact if we were trying to prove that Iran was not willing to negotiate. You yourself said, "that Kerry isn't that important." Sending in the big guns would draw more attention don't you think? So, why use him to mount a case against Iran? And, this seems like a roundabout way to find out if Iran is willing to talk with the US.

I am not going to argue the point of whether the media reported accurately or not- I frankly do not know what to believe right now and most major outlets got their information from "The Hill". And, I don't care what the RW thinks of Kerry either-but there are progressives who support the demonstrators who also were ridiculing Senator Kerry for attempting to undertake this so called trip.
And, don't take me for stupid, I never suggested a conspiracy between Iran and the RW against Kerry- that you even suggest that is insulting to me, however, both have reasons to pounce on any Democrat suggesting a trip to Iran.

[beachmom]

10. I did not mean to insult you, and I aplogize if it came out that way.

I guess I am amazed by how so many Kerry supporters here don't trust a story that has now come from several publications that are largely reputable.

I think I have stated my case that I think the story is true even though we don't have all the details, and I will leave it to each person to decide on their own without further comment.

[Mass]

11. I am not sure which story is true.Every single article I have read was referring to the initial FP

article and no other real source (except may be a quoted WH official saying he was not opposed to Kerry going to Iran, but not saying it was in the works, and a state department official saying he was opposed to it). A lot of other articles and column were in fact reacting to the FP article.

It is perfectly possible that the rumor itself was floated by Kerry and his team to FP, in order to get reactions, with or without links to the WH, but I have not seen any serious sources (even anonymous) confirming it.

So, I am not sure which story is true? That somebody floated the idea that may be Kerry was going to Iran? Obviously, somebody floated it. So, yes, it is true (and may even be originated from Kerry's office, though it is impossible to know).

That Kerry was considering seriously going to Iran during this Winter break? I seriously doubt this. But I am not sure it is worth spending too much time on this. (the latest rumor is that somebody from Berman's office is going to meet with the Iranians in Europe. Not sure whether it is true or not, given the fact that this comes from FP once again and is unsourced).

[karynnj]

13. FP recently had their list of 100 top global thinkers

Looking at that list, it seems they might have a neo-con/neo-lib bias - as they include ALL 5 Kagans! They include Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton and Mychrystal - and Dick Cheney. Kerry is not there. The list is pretty weird - with far too many Americans if it were truly global. (Not to mention too many journalists like Tom Friedman and Zakaria.)

[karynnj]

12. As one of them,

I think the likely truth is that Kerry did quietly submit a request through diplomatic channels to visit in the future. There are some that say that many trips are planned months in advance. This would be consistent with Kerry's constant believe in talking to people. (quietly was the Boston Globe adjective)

But, I don't think there was any intent to go this break - it clearly could not be fit with a hip replacement - even if he gave up all his holiday and healed enormously fast. In addition, there would not be adequate time to plan the security needed in a country with no embassy and no contact since 1979 without considerable lead time.

It appears the first leak was in FP where it was not stated as fact. My timing may be wrong, but the right seemed to grab it right as the riots started and make it seem as though Kerry wanted to go NOW. Some mainstream articles implied that Kerry (wisely - WP) decided now was not the time last Saturday.

I think there are important differences in the BG/WP/other credible accounts than in the WSJ and FOX - the biggest difference being the timing. Not to mention the right is trying to argue that they are on the side of the Pro-democracy Iranians - though Bush advised Iranians not to vote in the election where they lost power because he said it would not be fair. They likely would have lost, but they would have won more seats in Parliament.

The RW sources also ignore that on September 10, 2006, when Khatomi, the former Pro-Democracy President spoke at Harvard, Romney equated him with Amadinijhad and denied him state police protection. (My husband and I were in Boston for the National Security speech Kerry gave on September 9, 2006.) The right also when ballistic over a picture of Kerry and Khatomi on a Davos panel, where Kerry was seen writing something for him. It might well be that Kerry and possibly Biden might have the most substantial real contacts with the Pro-democracy people. Not to mention the right has been itching to bomb the country for years!

Like you, I think that Iran refusing Kerry likely means they will speak to no one from the US, which is what they said. This likely will make sanctions more likely and possibly more punitive - but China has said they won't abide. I think it was a noble try to really impose sanctions (or worse) only as a last resort. Without this, if they went to stronger actions, no one would ever know if diplomacy be a top American could have found a better solution. This is also why I think Kerry likely did make the request. This is consistent with what Kerry wanted the Bush administration to do in 2002 going to war as a last resort only.

[wisteria]

14. To throw a curve in here, what if this is just the first of other requests in the works?

Maybe Iranian leadership can not look to eager to speak with anyone from the US. Or maybe Kerry wasn't impressive enough for them.

I am just throwing this in. I have already expressed my opinion for the little it is worth. But, I am glad he will not be going, first because it should be either the SOS or our ambassador to Iran and because this acknowledgment of Amadinijhad as legitimate, also riles progressivs and not just the RW-even though something has to be attempted to stop their nuclear developments. And, what about Israel? Now for me if this was a chess move, it seemed clumsy.

[BlueIris]

3. ((((( Senator Kerry & THK )))))

Get better soon.

[Luftmensch067]

4. Sending them good thoughts, too!

And while I'm doing it, imagining all the things I think they're saving up to try to improve about healthcare in this country based on their own experiences.

Yesterday, I sat with my dad at the hospital while he had a minor outpatient surgical procedure. Nothing is exactly minor, because he's 81 and frail, but relatively minor. He had to fill out two extensive paper forms in his hospital bed, in his hospital gown, about all his ailments and surgeries and medications. It took him forever and he said at one point that he was going to need another operation by the time he was done (he refused to let me help, of course!) All I could think of was JK talking about how many times he's had to fill out forms, every time he's in a medical situation, advocating for medical electronic records!

Hoping for smooth and worry-free recoveries for both JK and THK.