Is the Boston Globe Biography of Kerry any good?

[elshiva]

I bought for fifty cents today at Goodwill. I liked the website they had on it at the Boston Globe. Anyone read it here?

[globalvillage]

1. Damn. I paid $15.

But it was worth it.

[Vektor]

2. I have read it and liked it quite a bit.

Good book - I couldn't put it down.

[elshiva]

3. Good. You are a good judge of all things Kerry.

I LOVE the website!
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/

[Vektor]

4. Thanks!

I try to be a good "Kerry Connoisseur".

[elshiva]

5. Yes, you are. I love your poetry.

Thank YOU!

[Vektor]

7. And thank you!

For being a willing consumer of my prose. :-)

[jillan]

6. Great Kerry site!

:9 :9 :9

[elshiva]

17. heehee!

[Island Blue]

8. I thought it was a great book

It really helped me to get to know John Kerry better.

[TayTay]

9. It was okay.

I thought, considering the amount of money, brain-power and resources they fired at this project that it could have been much better, but it was okay.

My chief problem with the book is that it has very little insight into how Kerry thinks and how he comes to his conclusions. He is a genuinely interesing guy and I wanted more insight into how he makes his decisions. I thought the BGlobe book was interesting, but I could also see the seams showing. It was obvious in the book that the writers couldn't get beyond the 'Globe problem' and didn't really make any really good intuitive leaps into what makes this guy tick.

I also think my own criticism has a blind spot, just for the record. It is the criticism of a Masshole who wasn't looking for an overall narrative or an introduction to someone I had never really looked at. I have a critique of the book as someone who is already generally familiar with the subject and wanted something more than a 'then he did this, then he did that' style. Maybe it wasn't written for me.

[karynnj]

10. "It's not that the colors aren't there, it's just emotion they lack"

This line from Paul Simon's "My Little Town" is what comes to mind when I try to think why of all the Kerry books, it is one I didn't really love. The Kerry in this book seems almost a pale copy of the intense Kerry seen elsewhere. The Butler book, which doesn't try to be a biography, is more insightful and shows more of Kerry than this book. It seemed to me like a book done by brute force - a list of events in his life was created and people wrote what was known in a matter of fact way, then it was compiled. It might be that, with Kerry running for President, they realized that as his home town paper, they had a huge archive of Kerry information that could support a biography.

Most good biographies that I have read are written by someone who either was already fascinated by the subject or approached the subject with a blank slate. They then spend months "living" the subject. The author then appears to understand and identify with the subject. This clearly didn't happen and if you look at Tour of Duty, the problem lies with the reporters, not Kerry.

Although Tour of Duty was not a complete biography, Brinkley clearly came to intensely admire Kerry as a person - to the degree that the media portrayed him as a Kerry partisan rather than the historian he genuinely was. This was unfortunate as Brinkley had interviewed many of the SBVT in the process of writing the book. As a historian, his book combined the accounts of many other people with Kerry's (which was the main source.

The Globe reporters felt they knew Kerry because they had covered him for decades. Ironically, their lack of curiosity or affection doomed them to write a book that would fail to give much insight into the person. They approached the book as reporters - what did Kerry do when. The book reads like a homework assignment they diligently finished, but which they didn't enjoy. Because they covered him for years, the authors' relationship with Kerry should have been objectively detailed. One observation - The press coverage of Bush is said to have been gushingly positive because of the press's fear that they would be excluded because of his vindictiveness - here, "the reporters who knew him best" obviously to not fear this form Kerry.

If the Globe would have had Oliphant write the book, they would have felt the need to explain that he was the reporter who stayed with Kerry in 1971 on the day he testified, but I saw no detail about the books authors' relationships - other than their claim they knew him best. (Actually an Oliphant book would be fun to read. From things he's written, it's clear he liked Kerry since the anti-war days, but he will call Kerry on things when it's fair to do so. His current day recounting of the Dewey Canyon II days seem to combine intense admiration with being almost amused by Kerry's attempts to fix everything - when he was due to testify in minutes.)

Their coverage of VN was horrible, possibly because they made little effort to research it and obviously it was not covered contemporaneously by the Globe. The investigative journalism bent also meant that they spent pages on Globe investigations into improprieties only to conclude Kerry didn't break any laws and was not unethical.

As you said there was no insight into how Kerry thinks and makes decisions, although from articles (not BG) that people posted here - the basic pattern of how he makes decisions was there even back in VN and it is refreshing in its openness. In VN, it seems that as soon as he was assigned to the riding into the canals, he asked both peers and members of his new crew questions about the dangers, he then seemed to focus on the conditions that resulted in the crew of a swiftboat being sitting ducks and mentally worked out a solution. He then casually explained his idea (using paper cups as boats - per one account) to some people on his crew and some peers to see what flaws they thought it had. Before the mission where he got the silver star, his friend Doz (?) and Root and he had all discussed Kerry's plan and agreed on the circumstances where it though risky was a better option than the standard practice. (Root's op-ed was far clearer than Kerry's own descriptions - might be why he's a Chicago Tribune editor.)

[TayTay]

11. The Globe should have allowed Farrell to write the whole thing

and have brought Oliphant in on it as well. They really knew Kerry pretty well and could have had some insights. The Globe had the horses or had access to the horses who could have written a fascinating book, but they kind of mailed it in.

I ask you: where is this in their book: This is from a Charlie Sennott ARticle on Kerry from 1996:

Kerry began his tour of duty in a safe haven, aboard a frigate stationed in California, and then the Gulf of Tonkin. But he wanted action, and he got it.

He volunteered for service in Operation Sea Lords, skippering one of the so-called ``swift boats,'' charged with navigating the Mekong Delta in search of the small craft that supplied the Viet Cong with weapons. Kerry's time ``in country'' with Sea Lords was less than four months.

Veterans who served with him portray Kerry as one of the more unorthodox and assertive young commanders in the operation -- both gallant and reckless. As he screened films of his Sea Lords experience, Kerry was asked if he ever felt he had put his own men in needless danger.

``I thought I was fighting the war and doing the best thing I could to win.''

Did his crew ever complain?

``No. They liked winning. And they didn't want to . . . just sit there. At least they never complained to me.''

Thomas Bellodeau, from a working class family in North Chelmsford, Mass., was a front gunner and radar man on Kerry's boat. He remembers the senator, whose radio name was ``Rock Jaw,'' and the furious action that earned him Silver and Bronze stars and one of three Purple Hearts. The Bronze Star was awarded for the events of March 13, 1969, according to the Navy citation. With a graze wound in his right arm, Kerry turned back into enemy fire to rescue a soldier fallen overboard.

But the battle Bellodeau remembers best was the one on Feb. 28 that earned Kerry the Silver Star. Especially vivid is his memory of the alarm he felt when Kerry turned their boat directly into enemy fire. It was an unusal strategy in a war in which cautious commanders tended to avoid direct assaults if air power or artillery could do the job. But it worked. The Viet Cong retreated, leaving behind a cache of weapons.

Bellodeau remembers thinking to himself: `` `I'm never doing that again. We're going to have to talk to this guy (Kerry).' A lot of the new guys came in gung ho, and we had already seen one skipper shot. But just when I was thinking about all that, there was more fire from the banks and he ordered the boat turned back into shore once again.''

Though some questioned his tactics, Kerry had the respect of the boat, says Bellodeau, now a union electrician. ``It always seemed to be the right decision. We're all alive, put it that way.''

Drew Whitlow, from a poor family in Oklahoma, was the back gunner on Kerry's swift boat. ``He volunteered us for everything. He'd always step forward and say, `We'll do it. Load up men.' And we'd say, `Oh my God, here we go again,' '' he remembers. ``We called him the John Wayne of Vietnam.''

Whitlow went on to a naval career, retiring after 26 years in 1991. He was surprised when he saw Kerry in the news in 1971, speaking out against a war he had so eagerly fought. ``I thought it was kind of a betrayal. He did a 180 on me. But then he went into politics, and it all kind of made sense. . . . He was a guy with a plan, you know, and that's okay. I guess.''

How did that guy get to the VVAW leadership role and the speech on Capitol Hill. That's one hell of a leap, apparently, according to Tour of Duty, one that occurred entirely within Kerry's mind without any talk with the crew or anyone else in VN. Wow! Cheesus, didn't anyone at the Globe find that fascinating? Didn't anyone at the Globe ask what it meant, how it influenced future decisions and so forth. Oh well, the opportunity is now lost. (And I am obviously a fan of complexity. I think it makes people human and more accessible. I am not looking for dirt, I am looking for the human, the warmth and the pullbacks, the sense of self and the sense of vulnerability and fallibility. It's what makes people the fascinating creatures they are.)

[beachmom]

12. Thanks for the post, Tay Tay

I'll tell you the section of Kerry's history I want to understand more -- the "young and single", "gypsy" years. Kerry's official account was that he was miserable being single, but the Globe portrays a different story of fun vacations, lots of women, BUT . . . money problems, too. Throw on top of that, that during part of this time he was doing the noble work of the POW/MIA investigation with John McCain, including many trips to Vietnam. This had to be emotionally difficult for him. He didn't meet Teresa Heinz until 1992, right, and they didn't date until 1994, right? Oh yes, and he was also active in being a Dad to his girls, as his ex-wife was in and out of pyschiatric hospitals.

I don't know. I can't reconcile the positives -- normalizing Vietnamese relations and being a good Dad with the negatives -- his single life that I have heard many stories about along with his financial difficulties. He just refers to it all as being miserable, "young and single", lonely . . . I want more information, because if this was a time where he was "finding himself" or something this is relevant to his own character and how he would deal with being president. Obviously, meeting and marrying Teresa Heinz seems to have stopped the unstable single life he had before, but was it just the marriage, or had he already worked things out with himself before he got into a relationship with Teresa. (I also find it telling that he had no real relationships until he met her. 10 years of endless dating. Like having caviar every day. That's got to get old after a while).

[TayTay]

13. Well, here isa genuinely insightful article

written during 'the Gypsy Years' that I am very fond of. It contains both good and bad, snarky comments and deep praise. Maybe there are clues in here. There is certainly a lot more depth and an appreciation of a real-live human being.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/1992/02/09/the_avenger/

What do you think? I love this article. It depicts a fully thought out person, with grand and not so grand motivations. I like that. It is more human and intense. I am a complete sucker for stories like that. (Why wasn't Farrell allowed to write more in the Globe's book. He really knows Kerry. His articles in the Denver Post last year on Kerry were must reads. Sigh!)

As to your direct question on what was that like: I knoweth not. (Or I only know second-hand and what I read in the papers.) But articles like this are interesting. I think work filled the void.

[beachmom]

15. Excellent article, Tay Tay

I think he has definitely changed since 1991, mostly for the better, and I do think we have Teresa Heinz to thank for that. I'm sure she won't put up with too much shit from him, so his ego has probably been a bit tamed. But . . . part of me really likes this arrogant, edgy guy who's going to conquer the world. I think I will just have to accept the fact that during this time period, he had his moments where he was a bit of an ass, which is probably true about most of us. Yet it was coupled with moments of brilliance and audacity that benefited a lot of people.

I've also been called "complex" before, so I guess I will always be attracted to complex people like JK.

[karynnj]

14. That is a fascinating article

Reading it, I quickly saw that I do the very same thing I criticize in the Dean or Clark people. I think I kind of edit out the well documented aggressiveness that Kerry showed in Vietnam (and also the more dare devil aspects of his personality).

It is fascinating that he chose to do his job well - fighting aggressively but also getting his men out in one piece and alive. Maybe the type A personality, and the challange of fighting and winning (almost like athletics - though riskier) prevented him from taking a less aggressive path. What seems harder to understand is why he volunteered for the more dangerous assignment.

Given the statistics on the % casualties where he was, Kerry's swiftboat seemed at least as safe as the others. If he was reckless, wouldn't someone on his boat have wanted to get rid of him - this was late enough in the war that that type of thing happened. Instead they protected and respected him.

[TayTay]

16. That's where the Tour of Duty book comes in

It's obvious that there was a public person and a very private person. No wonder Kerry was pacing and pacing when Brinkley was reading his diaries from that time period. Kerry wrote beautifully and naturally about every aspect of his experience in VN. As he is a guarded person by nature (and not, how odd) it must have been hard to not want to insert 'editorial remarks' after each diary page that was read.

I think Kerry was an aggressive guy in his first two terms in the Senate. He was taking on national issues. It is mentioned in the article that he had that survivors' mantra that said each day after this is a bonus and that can compel some people to achieve what they can quickly (lest tomorrow not come.)

It is equally important to remember that life went on after this was written in 1992. Kerry had a bruising re-election campaign in '96 that also brought about change. (It was called his 'near-death' experience in MA.) He became, IMHO, a better Senator because of the closeness of that race. He revamped his Senate office so that it was visibly more responsive to local needs. He relaxed a bit more and took things more in stride. I also think he became more comfortable with the role of Senator, and with learning to seek out others to work with. In other words, he got better, way better. (And he wasn't bad to begin with, so geez, I think MA is well represented in the SEnate.)

But that article is a very interesting snapshot in time. And the writer had genuine insight, which the Globe book really did not. (Again, IMHO.) I don't see it as emphasizing good or bad aspects (we all have those, his traits are not uncommmon for a person achieving at that level whether in public office or in the business world or in academia.) Aggressiveness, advocacy, a burning passion to set things right and to ferret out the truth are good things, again, IMHO. His methods of doing same have been refined a bit. But I am glad those traits are there. I much, much prefer that to the wimpiness that some people bring to public office.

[karynnj]

18. I see what you mean

Somehow, I never connected the type of aggressiveness he showed in his early days in the Senate with the war-time agressiveness because I immediately thought of the latter as violence. Thinking about it, it was very tightly controlled aggressiveness where he sought the most effective manouver that would with reasonable safety defeat the enemies fighting him.

I greatly admired the aggressiveness he had in his early career - my 60s anti-war indoctrination prevented me from seeing that the same chacteristics I greatly admired fighting corruption were present in VN. I also made the mistake of applying the word aggressive in a too superficial way; (Howard Dean, bulldog personality way) rather than in the sense of aggressively pursuing a goal. I now understand why you, and others, have spoken of Kerry being extremely aggressive since the election (in arguments in DU). He is.

It is interesting that he changed his office and the way he worked after 1996, as it would have been very easy to have simply felt vindicated having just beaten the strongest, most popular Republican in the state. It almost seemed that having identified (during the campagn) where he was weakest, he changed things because he wanted to be better.

[TayTay]

19. This type of 'moment' is not so uncommon

Consider Cindy Sheehan and what has happened to her since her son died. She was, by all accounts, an average Mom in suburbia before this war. She married her high school sweetheart, raised four kids and was living an ordinary American life. Then something happened that utterly changed her and brought out qualities that were latent in her old life.

I listen to interviews with Cindy on various radio shows and she sounds so sweet and kind. But there is a will of pure steel under that sweet voice. She had a transformative moment that changed her view on life and on how she would forever respond to life. The awful death of her son changed this woman forever and brought out an aggressiveness and will to fight that, I bet, probably surprises even her. (If I may be so foolish as to make guesses about people I don't actually know.)

Transformative moments are fascinating. They are usually born of tragedy and they make over the soul involved. (It doesn't happen to everyone. Two people can go through two very similar events and one can shrug it off and go back to whatever life they had, the other cannot. They have been changed and cannot go back to what no longer exists.)

[karynnj]

20. I see what you mean in the case of Sheehan

I wonder where Kerry would have ended up if he had been allowed to study abroad (as he asked) or, if through Bundy or someone he were given a job in Washington (either in the military or in the government with a deferment. Or if Kennedy (or Johnson) had ended the war.

He always aimed to go into government and he was incredibly connected. He would still have had the same intelligence and eloquence. His values on most things would be the same. Judging from his activities in college his energy and enthusiasm would have been the same. He probably still would have gone to law school.

Without the war and the protests, it is possible that his first wife would have had fewer problems having not been terrorized by the government or it's possible he might have married someone else. It is likely he would never have had a divorce.

So many of his accomplishments seem related to his anger at government corruption and lying. Without feeling betrayed by his country in Vietnam, it would seem possible that he never would have become as unusual a Senator as he is. Before going to Vietnam, he spoke about it and debated it - but as a geopolitical issue.

So it might be that he would have been a more conventional politician. Whether he would have been as successful is questionable - he would have been the same very smart guy, with the same ability to speak. But the passion to root out evil would probably not be there.

[TayTay]

21. And that's what should have been in the BGlobe book

Not endless pages about stupid non-scandals that were, at the absolute most, penny-ante and dumb. (The best the Globe had was that he slept on someone couch when he was broke after a divorce? Oh please, how idiotic , petty and vindictive is that.)

You and I don't even know Kerry, never spent endless hours following him around on CapHill or writing articles about him for publication in the leading newspaper in his home state. Yet in about 10 or 12 posts, we managed to come up with more depth and insight than there was in that whole damn book.

And that was my problem with it.

[karynnj]

22. I still find it hard to believe that they were nasty enough to

try to make a scandal about that 10 years later. It's good he had friends who were happy to offer him hospitality. That they included his ex-wife's twin should have been a good clue that he had acted in a reasonably honorable way.

The bigger story was that he did a very credible job as a Senator in spite of all this. It's hard to believe that he was willing to risk his job fighting the contra/drug thing with no support on the part of his party while he was nearly broke and still dealing with a very complicated personal life.

Did they not stop to think that a broke Senator, on many important committees could have avoided sleeping on friend's couches very easily? The Keating 7 could have been the Keating 8. Would Kerry have been foregiven as readily as McCain?

That he was broke and sleeping at friends homes while working long hours in Washington then paying to return to see his kids every weekend shows the two things he gave priority to: being with his kids and being a Senator. This while most of his peers from school and in the Senate were multi-millionaires.

[TayTay]

23. Yup. Penny-ante chickensh*t stuff, not worth the cost to print it.

This is why so many Massholes have a problem with the Globe and their coverage of Kerry. It has been, at times, mystifyingly strange. Why was the Globe so pissed at Kerry when he didn't immediately tell them, instead of his close family, that he had prostrate cancer in early 2003? (Excuse me, what the f*ck right do they have to get mad at someone who wants to tell their family first that they have cancer? Cheesus, what a bunch of insensitive a-holes. I bet that if the shoe was on the other foot, they would have demanded the right for an Editor or Owner of the Globe to have privacy and the right to inform family members before going public. Cruel hypocrites.))

The absolute worst was the non-news about his heritage. This drove me around the bend in 2003 when it came out in the newspaper. The Globe commissioned someone to dig up dirt, ah, explore Kerry's family background on his father's side. They came up with the fact that he is of Austrian extraction and that his Grandfather committed suicide in a Boston Hotel. They then waited to see the Senator when he was in recovery from prostrate surgery and then sprang this on him along with a demand for an immediate 'reaction' to this news. Then they used the fact that he was not, in fact, Irish as a club to beat him over the head. (Wow! He isn't even Irish. He used the fact that his last name sounds Irish to fool voters. Oh my Gawd, would you people crawl back under your rocks. Who the f*ck cared? No one voted for the guy cuz they thought he was Irish. They voted for him cuz he was the best candidate and because he became an excellent Senator. I f*cking hate these people. This was off-the-scale Globe lunacy and I just was so mad.)

I think you now understand why some Boston Massholes just have a problem with the Globe and their Kerry coverage. They are biased, overly critical and obsess over nothings that they wouldn't even stoop to notice in someone else. We are not paranoid about the Globe, cuz sometimes, they really are out to get you.

[karynnj]

27. Am I interpreting this right?

They waited to see him when he was in recovery from surgery? at the hospital?

I could understand there need to get information of the cancer if it was 2004, not 2003. It would be wrong to hide information at a point where people had to vote or if Kerry attempted to hide it. What I can't believe is that they obviously dislike him enough to not even real the normal human sympathy that goes with cancer towards him. I would even feel bad if Senator Frist or Senator Santorum were diagmosed with cancer.

I guess this answers any question of what Kerry could do to make the Globe like him. They like his work. He has given them beautifully written editorials. If they can't even feel some pity or sympathy when a man is diagnosed with cancer, there is probably nothing he can do.

They also really didn't have to publish his 40 year old grades. The point of the form was what he did in the military. The Globe highlighted the grades from his application while putting the fact that the records completely agreed with those Kerry put out except there was an extra page of him last Vietnam fitness report that rated him at the very highest level and recommended accelerated promotion. They had to know the rest of the press would only pick up the embarrassing grades.

[TayTay]

28. No, that is not right.

Here, go to C-Span and go listen or watch this:

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Cancer Announcement
Sen. Kerry announces he will undergo prostate cancer surgery.
2/11/2003: WASHINGTON, DC: 30 min.

And as painful as it might be, go browse this from C-Span

Harvard Univ. Panel With Kerry & Bush Campaign Managers
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University hosts a forum on the 2004 election with a panel of two: Kerry-Edwards Campaign Manager Mary Beth Cahill and Bush-Cheney Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman.
12/15/2004: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 5 min.

The first you can find at the www.cspan.org website and enter search term 'Kerry' at the video library search in the middle of the page. The second is the same thing, only the search thing is Cahill.

The first one has the Globe reporting questioning Kerry. Hear it for yourself. The second one has the same reporter relating his experiences in stalking Kerry in 2003 about the cancer thing. I don't remember how far into the tape, maybe 30 minutes or so.

Don't take my word for it, go see for yourself.

And yes, they specifically say in their book that they went to tell Kerry at his Beacn Hill home what they had found out about his Grandfather's suicide and noticed that the guy was still wincing from the pain from his cancer surgery. What a bunch of guys! Sweethearts, every damn one of them.

And don't even get me started on the idiotic 'Kerry hates gays' thing from this spring. It gives me a Sam Kinison moment. (Oookkkh, ooooohhhhhh , oooooohhhhhh!)

[karynnj]

29. Thanks

I'll check them out later - need to be on a different computer. I agree with your assesment. I hope they're proud of themselves. Kerry must really have been in pain for it to have been apparent to them.

[beachmom]

30. Completely agree w/ you, Tay Tay, except heritage stuff

I don't know, I found the family stuff extremely facinating, and really, years later I can't help but think the Kerry family will be grateful for a lot of this research the Globe did. It's the whole nature vs. nuture argument -- I think both matter. The DNA that you carry affects how you behave, no doubt. So what does this history tell us? It tells of a family that changed their name and religion in order to escape prejudice and to achieve success. But what price was paid for erasing your heritage? It is also a very American story of how a family left old Europe for a better life, had immense success, then disappointment, and a horrible tragedy (Frederick Kerry's suicide). Of those left behind in Europe, at least two family members were killed in concentration camps during WWII. A little historical perspective would lead you to the chilling realization that at the same time the Kerrys and Kohns were running around Vienna, another inhabitant of that city named Adolf Hitler was cementing his radical anti-Semitic views while living in a homeless shelter.

I think this may be an issue for Kerry even if he says it's no big deal. A couple of months ago I was perusing the Kerry Reference Library, and read this quote from a Hardball episode from October 2003:

Hardball Battle for the White House:Sen. John Kerry
Oct. 20, Tuesday, 7 p.m. ET
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
by Becky Diamond MSNBC Campaign Embed
MSNBC
Updated: 4:50 a.m. ET Oct. 21, 2003

MATTHEWS: You are Irish.

KERRY: No, I’m part. My favorite book, though, biography is Edwin Morris’ (ph)...

http://kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=17

Okay, so I tried to let this go, but then I double checked the Boston Globe book, and it says that they informed him of the fact that both his grandmother and his grandfather were Jewish in January 2003, and this TV program was October 2003. If it ends up that there are some Irish on the Forbes/Winthrop side then what he said was accurate. But . . . if not, what's going on here? Did he forget? This shouldn't bother me, but it does. Any thoughts?

The main reason why I think heritage is relevant is that although we don't want to think about it, anti-Semitism is alive and well in this country as well as all over the world. A Jewish friend of mine really liked Lieberman but said that a Jew would never be elected POTUS. Ever. I couldn't quite accept this, yet the whisper campaign about Kerry's Jewish ancestry (like from Rush Limbaugh and Unfit for Command's author Corsi) makes you realize that these uncomfortable realities exist. So although nobody officially made a big deal about these family revelations, they DO affect the polls whether we want to admit it or not.

[TayTay]

33. Two things about this

These 'revelations' came out on a sitting Senator who had just been overwhelmingly re-elected to his 4th term with 81% of the vote in an uncontested election. The revelation about family events of a century or more before had no bearing on his service in the Senate or fitness to be President. At all. I have no idea why the Globe brought this up. I don't care what his background is or what his grandparents did (unless it's a good story, sigh!)

I have no idea what Kerry's family background is. Someone here said he had Irish ancestry somewhere. (Whatever.) Okay, so maybe he does. Again, I don't care. It's a great family story and has no bearing on an established record. (Personal vs. Public.)

My objection to this was the sleazy nature of the way the Globe brought it up, not the ancestry itself. The Globe brought it up, then used it as a club to beat Kerry with and make it look like he had lied about it to garner votes. I thought that was unnecessary and dumb. (And I am oh so tired of a MA state boys club that still thinks this stuff matters. What is this the 1950's? How long are we going to play the idiotic us against them card of ethnicity? I friggin hate that. I wish some of the people around here would just get over it. Kerry is both a blue-blood and an ethnic. He had that privileged up bringing and a sad chapter in his family history. He can genuinely belong to both worlds, ferchrisakes.) hmm, if you sense that I am thinking of old in-state stuff, well you are right. There is a history here. (TayTay gets all pissed off and needs to take a long walk. Sigh, there is a history here.)

The family stuff is a good story. But I don't know that it was a good enough story to cause the Globe beat the guy over the head with it at the start of a Pres campaign. I think they had an agenda. And there was NO discussion of ehtnicity, having a Jewish heritage or anything else in their stories. At all. Again, no friggin insight, such as you have made, at all. (I don't doubt your insights or the fascination with them. I don't share them, but they are valid, well-thought out and relevent.)

[beachmom]

38. The Globe vs. Kerry -- a Mass. thing I have been spared

Thanks for writing back, Tay Tay, and I hope my remarks didn't upset you. Sounds like the Globe is a sore spot for him, and for you, too. You're right -- ethnic background should be irrelevant. But that's not the world we live in is I guess what I was trying to say. I'm laughing a little bit at myself now, because I think I'm trying to turn "Are you REALLY part Irish" into "Were you or were you not in Cambodia in December 1968?" (I can still see Jon Stewart asking Kerry that on The Daily Show, half serious, half mocking the stupid media) The answer to the questions is: who the fuck cares!!!! So maybe some Irish 3rd cousin is in there somewhere and I should leave it at that (did I mention that I am half Irish?), or that he was relying on the saying that "everyone's a little bit Irish on St. Patty's Day". To be honest, I like that he's not a full bred blue blood -- I mean, BOORRRING. I haven't read much on the Bush family, but isn't that what they are, and don't their ancestors have a not very honorable past? But, I digress.

Your overall assessment that the Globe book wasn't that great I completely agree with. To me, it was a book that said enough nice things about him to prevent it from being called a hit piece. Half the time I read the book, I thought he was great, and the other half of the time I didn't think I liked him at all. I think that they got him wrong. They thought that when he went to a hospital to visit a long time campaign volunteer that this was surprising, whereas we would expect nothing less from him. That's the difference.

[TayTay]

39. You didn't upset me

I just thought that I was a bit too strident in some of the other postings. (If I am not careful, a post that is meant to be criticism winds up sounding pissy instead. Then you start fighting with people who are agreeing with you and then it just all goes down hill from there. I don't want to start being pissy with people who are insightful and who bring a different viewpoint to the table; that's crazy talk.)

I have major problems with the Globe. I have wicked major problems with their inconsistencies on race, ethnicity, power and politics in the good old Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Some of that is in the coverage of Kerry. Some of that goes way beyond that. It is a 'hot button' with me. I can't possibly explain it all; and it is only a little bit relevant to this group anyway. But it drives me around the bend. (Insert the argument here about how liberals are their own worst enemy sometimes and how people who are supposedly compassionate and caring aren't, at least when it's their ox getting gored. Sigh!)

Sorry if I sounded pissy. I am much, much better now.

[beachmom]

40. We're all friends here, which is why I feel comfortable bringing up

sometimes controversial stuff and know that I won't be flamed. I was thinking that it was me being a bit out of line trying to catch Kerry not being particularly truthful on a subject that really does not affect his job at all. But I was surfing around the net and found a post by a right wing blog with the title "JK is a big fat liar", and after reading the post, the writer convinced me of the opposite. He quoted an appearance on John McLaughlin Group from 1993 where he was asked if he was Irish. JK said, "No.". Then McLaughlin kept pressing, "But isn't your father part Irish?" Kerry: "No, he's from Austria. We don't know." etc., etc., etc. And then the obvious just hit me in the face -- John Kerry is no liar -- it was his grandfather who was, and for good reasons, I may add. The whole thing is a little embarrassing -- you have this blatantly Irish name, and you want to tell the truth, but the truth is this big, long explanation. If I were him (and not a politician), I would probably have said countless times that I was Irish just to avoid the whole sad explanation. I had a friend once who was Asian, and people would ask him over and over "What are you?". He HATED the question, and would answer coldly "Chinese". Sometimes having to reveal your life history in every casual conversation can get tiresome. Short term -- you're right that the Globe was callous. But long term, they did him a favor. No more need to explain.

Thanks for reading my rambling posts, Tay Tay, even though I know this subject isn't particularly interesting to you! And you didn't sound pissy -- I just thought that maybe I went over the line.

[TayTay]

42. Full Circle story: It wraps this all up

One of the very first things I ever post to the Kerry group was the story of what happened after the whole 'He's not Irish' story broke in the Globe. I hope all those who have heard this before bear with me or skip it, some of the newbies might not have heard it and there is a chance they might find it amusing. (I did. It's one of my fav Kerry stories.)

The Globe did their series of geneological stories on Sen. Kerry in Feb of 2003. The Senator made some token defensive comments, but most of his time was being spent recovering from cancer surgery. There is an event in Boston called the St. Patrick's Day Breakfast that brings together politicians from all over the Commonwealth (and nationally as well.) They get together to tell jokes and stories (and most are painfully not funny, one of the draws for the event is to see who tanks as much as who is genuinely funny. Ah, Boston.)

Friggin Op-Ed on this from the Boston Herald. The gauntlet was thrown down by the yahoo idiots at the Herald. (Who writes OpEd on stuff like this?)

OP-ED; Kerry's Southie snub no lucky charm
Boston Herald, All, Sec. Editorial, p 35 03-13-2003
By Wayne Woodlief

Have you heard the latest John Kerry joke? He's suing his doctors for malpractice. They didn't REALLYremove his "aloof gland" (as Kerry had quipped they did at the time of his recent prostate surgery).

Nope, Kerry's just as aloof as ever. Or so it must seem to a lot of Massachusetts pols whom he is dissing this coming weekend by skipping South Boston's annual St. Patrick's Day roast. He's snubbing the homefolks after gallivanting around the country raising money for his presidental campaign.

It may be a smart, safety-first move for Kerry in the short run: Duck-and-cover and don't give any more attention than he has to the story that he's notREALLY Irish (as he has allowed us to believe for years), after all. The Kerry campaign must be musing: It's not a big story with the national press now, let's not make it one by going to the roast.

But in the long run, the incident could be one more example of a pattern of expediency and one more piece to the puzzle that's always haunted his political career: Who ISthis guy, really? What's he hiding from us?

The 2003 Breakfast may as well have had Kerry listed as one of the entries, because just about every pol who got up to the podium teed off on the Senator and his 'ethnic' revelations. (Some pols even brought props. There were big blowup pics showing Kerry in stereotypical Italian, Mexican and other garb. Funny, funny, har, har.) The rumor swirling through the over-crowded hall was that Kerry wasn't going to show up for this event and that he 'wouldn't have the guts to come here and face this crowd' of yahoos.

Nearly funny remarks: BGlobe 3/17/03 "Said breakfast host and South Boston Senator Jack Hart in his opening remarks, "No matter who you are, everybody's Irish on St. Patrick's Day . . . except John Kerry."

"I'm disappointed Senator Kerry is not here today," said Romney before the senator showed. "I wasn't surprised he threw his yarmulke into the ring. If he were here he'd be eating his corned beef on a bagel."

Romney said that last week a woman had blamed him for the decline of Massachusetts wildlife. "I cannot take the blame for the fact that Senator Kerry cleaned up his act," Romney said, referring to the senator's playboy past." (TayTAy resists urge to say something nasty about Romney in the interests of brevity.)

About half way through the event, as one tedious pol was again making lame Kerry jokes, Rep Stevie Lynch announced that Sen. Kerry was in the hall and was making his way to the front podium. People were shocked to see him. The TV camera followed Kerry through the hall (he is an easy guy to spot cuz he is so tall and has that salt-n-pepper hair.) Kerry strode to the front, the guys at the podium sort of melted away and let him have center stage.

BHerald 3/17/03: "U.S.Sen. John Kerry made a surprise appearance at the annual St. Patrick's Day roast yesterday - blunting criticism that he was chickening out of the political slugfest because of controversy over his non-Irish roots.

Arriving on an overnight flight from a presidential stump stop in California, Kerry came armed to Ironworkers Local 7 hall in South Boston, whose doors he'd said he wouldn't darken just four days earlier.

"So who said I don't have the matzo balls to be here?" Kerry boomed as he took the stage, prompting wild cheers from a crowd that had been piling abuse on him all morning.

Kerry offered to settle his heritage controversy for good: "Scottish, Scots-Irish, English, Jewish, Austrian, Hungarian, Czech."

"I don't understand why President Bush is going to the United Nations," Kerry said. "Hell, I am the United Nations."

Amid jabs at the anti-war French and cracks about his own prostate, Kerry took aim at Gov. Mitt Romney, who earlier had joked at Kerry's expense - -welcoming Romney "to the hair club."

And one more quote from the Globe -- For Vektor -- Cuz I loves ya honey: "Kerry got much mileage from his prostate cancer surgery, which he descibed as "a little repair work done on my shillelagh." Lynch winced beside him. The audience hooted as Kerry edged closer to the line than any other speaker."

Anyway, that was the upshot of the whole damn idiotic, Globe Irish bullshit thingee. It never came up again. And it was funny!

[whometense]

44. Researching the history of Bill Weld

in order to better sink his candidacy for NY governor, I turned up this gem, circa 1996:

In new testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 23, one of Kerry's former investigators, Jack Blum, fingered Weld as the "absolute stonewall" who blocked the Senate's access to vital evidence linking the contras and cocaine. "Weld put a very serious block on any effort we made to get information," Blum told a crowded hearing room. "There were stalls. There were refusals to talk to us, refusals to turn over data."

Weld has denied those charges and insisted that he conscientiously pursued the allegations. In that position, the governor has been helped by the main Massachusetts papers, particularly The Boston Globe, which have largely accepted Weld's word. Indeed, instead of digging into Weld's official drug-war actions in late 1986 and during 1987, the Globe has gone on the offensive against Kerry -- for sleeping at the homes of friends during his divorce a decade ago.

Yet, an investigation by The Consortium has uncovered new evidence that buttresses Blum's charge that Weld stonewalled the contra-cocaine allegations. Information also emerged revealing a cozy relationship between Weld and top Globe reporters in Washington during the mid-1980s.

A review of Weld's Justice Department phone logs and calendars, from fall 1986 to spring 1987, revealed Weld scheduling squash matches with the Globe's Bob Healy and speaking to the Globe's Steve Kurkjian far more than to any other journalist, even those who regularly covered the Justice Department. Kurkjian wrote the recent investigative story slamming Kerry's acceptance of friends' hospitality during his divorce.

More importantly, however, during the current Senate campaign, the Globe has given scant coverage to Weld's record of downplaying -- and trying to discredit -- the flood of contra-cocaine allegations that inundated his office in late 1986 and early 1987.

[karynnj]

47. Thanks again Tay Tay

I had heard the Matzoh ball comment and heard he pretty much defused that entire thing - but didn't hear the other comments made by your shy, reserved, aloof Senator. I loved his UN comment. (Does Scots-Irish count as Irish in Boston? )

[karynnj]

45. I think your explanation is great

Truth sometimes is a long complicated explanation. Kerry showed a willingness last year to keep many complicated answers because the issues were important and the meaning would be lost along with the details if he simplified things. I think you're right that long term they did him a favor.

On the Hardball thing you posted earlier, I suspect a transcript problem. The answer No, I'm part, than referring (unasked)to a biograpy is weird and awkward.

[beachmom]

46. Response to Tay Tay and Karynnj

Thanks Tay Tay for posting that. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing! THIS is why I go to the JK forum. To get the record set straight, but amusing me along the way. I had heard the "matzo ball" thing before, but not with the entire context. Why didn't JK use humor to debunk the more trivial criticisms of him? He could have joked about all the stupid stuff -- looking French and knowing French, being wordy and a bore, being reserved and aloof (he did a little there but more was needed), and, of course, there is the windsurfing. All of that added up to the "unlikeable" factor, and if Bush can say that he is "English impaired" ad nauseum why can't Kerry joke about being "cool impaired". He said once that if you say you're cool, that automatically makes you uncool. Well, I think the reverse is true, too. Jon Stewart constantly makes fun of himself (being a Jew, being short, etc.) and how stupid his show is, which automatically makes you want to watch it more! Humor on the trivial stuff, serious on the seriuos stuff.

Karynnj -- actually, Chris Matthews was asking Kerry about books, and then threw in the "are you Irish" bit. It looks like from Kerry's jokes at the St. Patty's roast that he indeed has a drop of Irish blood from somewhere, so he isn't a "big, fat liar" after all, so those right wing a-holes can just go shove it!!!!!

Phew! I am officially done with this topic. I'll wait a few days before I bring up the next issue I've been wrestling with and I can count on you wonderful ladies and a few gentlemen to give me what I need. Thanks!

[TayTay]

48. The part of that story that is a bit subtle and really funny

is the implied 'F*ck you' that the Senator gave to all those carping idiots who had been on his case for weeks about this stupid non-issue. I know that he joked about it. I know that it went over well and I saw what was officialy printed in the Globe. But I also speak enough Boston English to know a 'FU, get off my case' when I hear one. And I heard one that day. (In a sort of classy way. Is there a classy way to say, 'FU'?)

I was so proud of 'em. (Maybe that part is a Boston thing too.) And I really wish he would use more chutzpah and humor in going after his critics. Cuz the results can be great.

[Mass]

41. I wonder if this issue is not a typically Bostonian issue anyway

I find fascinating to hear and read regularly in the Boston media that the fact that the MA House and the Senate chairs are held by Italian Americans is a big step on the way of diversity. I wonder if this could even be seriously said somewhere else in this country.

As for Kerry's background it is so complex that you can understand he never tried to explain it. On the Forbes side, his mother was born and raised in France, his grand-father was born in China, ... Except for the fact that Kerry was not Irish and we are in Boston, how could the fact that his family was not as Irish as his name implies be relevant to the general public.

[karynnj]

43. I don't think looking into his family background was wrong,

as it is really almost typical in a standard biography. Of the two evelations, the grandfather's suicide probably had more impact on Kerry's life. One of the reactions Kerry had about his grandfather's suicide was to say something about how hard that must have been for his dad and that it explained a lot about his dad.

On the ancestory issue, it seems that Kerry never made a big deal of his ancestory on either side. Even at his convention he didn't try to reclaim his ancestor whose quote Reagan used (stold) for his theme. It was only natural that people would assume a Catholic named Kerry was Irish. It probably is true he never went out of his way to set people straight.

The timing is the tricky part of it. Although neither of these relevations diminish his achievments or character, both are politically somewhat negative. They were going to publish the book and would include this information, so it was right to tell Kerry.

As they and their readers would have known, Kerry had just had a major cancer scare and surgery, and his parents had both passed away. All as he was trying to begin a campaign for President. Shouldn't people have given him a huge amount of credit for having the persistance and strength to continue, not to mention the sympathy you feel for anyone under those circumstances? (To put it in context, if in the next year,GHWB and Barbara died and W got cancer, I would feel sorry for him - although I totally despise him.)

[ginnyinWI]

24. besides the war changing his attitude toward govt,

I think it gave him a chance to know people from more modest backgrounds, and gave him an insight into their values and needs--something you can't learn from a book. It might well have made him a more populist Democrat than he would have been otherwise. More concerned with everyday people, because he understood them better. I know he wasn't super-rich, but was definitely upper-middle class at least, and with a pedigree to boot, and moved in those circles up until he went into the Navy. (example: dating Jackie Kennedy's sister! sheesh.)

[TayTay]

26. Yup, it pissed him off, but good

Someone once described him as a 'Mr. Darcy' type character (from Pride and Prejudice.) He had the title, but not the wealth or lands.

Vietnam pissed him off. The people that he basically knew, who were the fathers or uncles of people he went to school with, the people who personally pitched going into the military to him as a good way to serve your country in an honorable way lied to his face. He saw that, he saw the arrogance and abuse of power and it pissed him off, but good. And that was the turning point. That was the steel in the spine, the agressiveness and the impetus to go do something. (And he could have just gone into business or gone into a safe seat in Congress or something. But instead he took the incredibly risky step of going into the VVAW and the protests and the arrest in Lexington and so forth.) It friggin pissed him off. (I love that.)

So, how much of that guy is still there? I think a lot. Did the Globe examine at all how that committment to a cause affected him, his family and those around him? F*ck no. They just did a 'then he said this, and then he said that, and, oh, by the way, we didn't like the fact that he used a car without getting the payment in on time.' Arrrrggggghhhhhhhh! Bite me! This was not a very good bio. Not given what the Globe knows and how long they covered him.

I am ending my Globe jeremiad now. It just makes me angry.

[fedupinBushcountry]

25. Excellent article TayTay

I have never read the Globe biography. I saw a forum on it on C-Span and it really turned me off. Yes where was Oliphant?

[LittleClarkie]

31. Oliphant could right a good book about Kerry

filled with the kind of things you're talking about.

Part of it is giving him the benefit of the doubt and knowing how his mind works, two things I think Oliphant could do.

[karynnj]

32. I would buy it, sight unseen

I loved his interview with Kerry at the Kennedy Center. The questions were great and Kerry gave really thoughtful answers - Kerry seemed so relaxed, maybe because he knew Oliphant wasn't going to ambush him with a tricky question, it was Boston, or maybe just because it was after the election.

I loved Kerry's look, when he was asked how much of the 1971 activist was still there. What would really be good if Oliphant did it is he would probably ask a lot of similar type questions -which would be great because it really led to a very nice discussion between Kerry and him. It's not just that he knows him, but that he has the relationship where he can throw those type of questions to Kerry, knowing he won't take them the wrong way. It really does draw him out and I think Kerry benefits more than most people would from that.

[TayTay]

34. I compeltely agree that Oliphant would be able to write a great book

He is a great guy with a really good sense of humor and he 'gets' Kerry. I too loved that interview at the JFK Museum. And I think Kerry was genuinely touched and honored to be given this Award from Teddy and the Kennedy family, given his past admiration for JFK.

I have always loved Oliphant's desciption of Kerry at the VVAW March in DC and at the hearings. That was really good stuff. Oliphant was a youngish reporter and Kerry was still a bit of a neophyte at the national political game. It was a great moment.

[karynnj]

35. especially when Oliphant quoted himself as saying something

like "John, you're suppose to be there in five minutes" as Kerry went around dealing with problems that came up.

Brinkley did a great job with Kerry's life up through the anti-war movement, but then (by design) covered the rest of his life till that point pretty quickly. From the stuff you and others wrote and posted, Kerry's work was both fascinating and not all that well known - maybe Brinkley or another historian will tackle it. But unless he runs again, they nay fear it wouldn't sell. (But then again if the Bush fortunes go down, writing about their seamy side may end up almost being the story of Kerry's investigations)

It's just too bad that the Globe didn't realize that they could have written a book to match Kerry's life. (Compared to most candidate's biographies, this one should have stood out because there is far more drama in his life story than in say the Ford, Carter, Clinton, Dean etc biographies.)

[TayTay]

36. I agree.

Okay, officially and for the record, the BGlobe book is not my cup of tea and makes me pissy, petty and something of a blowhard with an agenda of my own. (Mea culpa.) Sorry to everyone who liked it. (Which is perfectly fine. I just had some problems with it. And obviously, those problems have a history that is probably way too MA oriented and inside-baseball for me to post so much on.) I have a long memory on some stuff with Kerry and it is probably better for me to just let it lie. (I was re-reading my posts and they look like someone with wicked PMS wrote them. Hmmmm.)

Now that I have officially celebrated 'Be Nice to a Bitchy Person Day', I need to move on.

So have any of you ever perused the amazing docs at the NAtional SEcurity ARchive. They have lots of good, origianl stuff on Kerry and his investigations in the 80's and 90's. (Until the Rethug came into office in the mid 90's and decided that only Democrats could be investigated. Sigh! The money dried up and there were to be no more pesky investigations. That attitude continues to today.)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ Use their search and enter Kerry. Good stuff.

[Island Blue]

37. I appreciate your insights Tay Tay

To those of us looking in from the outside (at least to me) the book seemed reasonable, fair and informative. To someone with more of an insider's perspective of The Globe's coverage of Kerry (like yourself) it seemed like the same sh*t, different day. When I read it last year I knew very little about John Kerry so it was helpful. Now that I know a whole lot more about Kerry (thanks in large part to this group), if I were to go back and read again I'd probably be able to pick out the parts of it that are total bs and Globe bias. Funny how knowledge changes perspective.

(And sorry, I didn't mean to delay your moving on. :) )