Kerry Bounces Back, Hones Diplomatic Role

[Mass]

Great article in Roll Call. Of course, they cannot avoid the classic look at State Department,but aside from this, this is a great article. Amazing how the tone has changed in a few years, when you could not find a Senator to say nice things about Kerry.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_7/John-Kerry-Diplomatic-Role-Obama-Ally-207285-1.html?pos=htmbtxt

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry has finally found his groove, following a four-year period bookended by professional failure
...
But two and a half years into his tenure running the Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry has emerged as an effective chairman and chief Obama ally. He has expanded the policy scope of the panel, enjoyed major legislative success on the president’s foreign policy priorities and traveled extensively throughout Asia and the Middle East on diplomatic missions that were closely coordinated with the White House.
“He’s done exceptionally well,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), a Foreign Relations member, said Wednesday. “He certainly has even — beyond the committee — used his position as the chair to help the administration the world. And so I think he’s had a remarkable tenure.”
...
But ask Kerry a question about politics, particularly any plans he might have to help Democrats oust top target Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) in 2012, and he is likely to demur, explaining that his intention this year is to focus on policy. That has included widening the purview of the Foreign Relations Committee, which he has served on during his 26 years in the Senate. Vice President Joseph Biden’s election paved the way for Kerry to become chairman.
Under Kerry, Foreign Relations has incorporated “global climate change” and “economic security and competitiveness” into its policy portfolio. The chairman also established a new investigative unit within the committee to allow the panel to conduct its own review of critical foreign policy matters. Kerry has spearheaded oversight of U.S. relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan while also working to streamline the ability to ratify treaties with allies such as Australia and the United Kingdom.
Kerry’s recent travels have taken him to Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan and Sudan. In separate interviews, Menendez and Senate Armed Services ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) attributed Kerry’s success to his work ethic, depth of knowledge, bipartisanship and the respect he commands among his Senate colleagues. Menendez volunteered that Kerry’s victory in pushing START through the Senate was “John Kerry at his best.”
McCain, who collaborated with Kerry on the bipartisan Libya resolution and previous legislation addressing the change in power in Egypt, lauded the Senator’s work even as he acknowledged their differences. McCain said Kerry’s performance was the most he could have hoped for from a Democrat, given their obvious disagreements on key foreign policy and national security issues.
“We have a number of commonalities,” said McCain, who is more hawkish than the diplomatically inclined Kerry. “John and I have our differences, which are spirited but sort of like mine with . We have our spirited discussions but overall we work together on a lot of issues.”

[karynnj]

1. It is nice that they make the point that he is well respected by his peers

- for all the right reasons.

There are things to quibble about. It is rather weird to use the narrow loss of the Presidency and the fact that Obama did not choose him as Secretary of State to define the entire period as if it were a failure. In the first place, he won his party's nomination and narrowly won an election where the deck was stacked against any Democrat. The fact is that his campaign was not filled with flaws. There are not even many gaffes - in spite of speaking about 12 hours a day. The two most think of were media created circuses. Kerry's FULL comments on the 2 votes for funding are perfectly clear and in today's light, he was right. The Grand Canyon nonsense was Candy Crowley combining a question Kerry was NOT asked with a standard response to a different question. The fact that the combination made no sense, did not stop some from using it. (If he wants a flawed campaign - look at a candidate who at least 4 times claimed being under sniper fire in Bosnia.)

It ignores that in that period, between the "loses", Kerry's actions - other than the joke - were near flawless. Even Schumer now says "he" should have led a filibuster of Alito. On Iraq, nearly the entire party ended up accepting Kerry's position. Not to mention, his endorsement of Obama was likely critical - though the media has never admitted that. (The Clintons know it from the way they treated him). He then was, in both the primaries and the general election, a very useful top surrogate. (Looking at both the 2004 and the 2005 - 2007 period, imagine the media treated him like they did Clinton in 1992. )

As to the other bookend. Secretary of State was not a "contest". There is no doubt that Kerry helped Obama more and there is no doubt that he has more diplomatic skill and foreign policy experience than Clinton. This very likely was recognition that the Clintons left independent could be a problem - especially as HRC had no power base in the Senate and was likely still angry that many worked against her.

[Inuca]

2. Freudian slip?

"narrowly WON an election..." :-(

[karynnj]

3. oops!

I wish it were so! I sincerely believe that had there been sufficient voting machines in Ohio, he would have won. The results are too close to think that the small % needed would have come from people who simply could not wait more than 4 hours in the rain to vote. That is an impossible threshold for a huge number of people. (Additionally, it could have in itself sent a signal to people that the Democrats exceeded far beyond expectation in getting the vote out.)

[ObamaKerryDem]

5. I found that comment odd--and more than a little insulting--as well!

Such a shame as it was a pretty good article otherwise. Would've been much better without that though..

I also thought the comment that JK tends to be "demure" on politics/political questions rather interesting. I must beg to differ with that too. Of course, this article centers mostly around JK's role on the SFRC and in foreign policy. When being talked to/interviewed in regard to that aspect of his job, it makes a lot of sense that JK would be more focused on policy. But to imply that he is inclined to essentially shy away from politics or helping MA Dems defeat Brown next year, I don't think is fair..or accurate. Look at JK's other recent interviews in which he does take on politics and the current political climate. Look at his recent town halls, at which policy was paramount and very appropriately so, but politics also figured in really significantly, also appropriately, I feel, given the topics. He can be and most often is very focused on and firey about politics...there is just a time and place.

Maybe I am reading way too much into that part, lol. But I thought "Obviously you haven't seen him in other settings" when reading that part of the author's article. :)

That said, it's great to see JK getting this kind of recognition--much deserved and long overdue! Nice to read about his peers weighing in positively as well.

[wisteria]

4. This is a good read. n/t