Reply #6: My immediate thought was that she had it absolutely backwards

[karynnj]

Imagine that Kerry was able, from some miracle or magic, to have gotten 7 people to sign onto a package that included a stimulus, raised taxes on the wealthiest slightly closing the wealth gap, and included tax reform in the form of closing loopholes - eliminating some of the power of lobbyists while making for simpler, fairer taxes. Would that make him better as Secretary of State?

Or would the fact that he was the one sent to Pakistan after Davis was killed or sent to Afghanistan when Kharzi was refusing to follow the country's election laws - and succeeded more than could have been expected be the real test of whether he would be not just a good SoS, but an incredible diplomat.

Or would the fact that Kerry, more than anyone else, was instrumental in getting more than the 67 votes needed for START out of a Senate where it was a fight to get 60 for anything make him an excellent SoS in terms of dealing with Congress. Here, at least one republican (McCain) voting against it praised Kerry's management of the bill. For hours on the Senate floor, Kerry took on every Republican argument and answered them intelligently, convincingly and with no show of frustration or anger. ( Corker referred to him having the patience of Job.)

Or would the fact that he is one of the few Democrats to have articulated foreign policy values for decades make him a SoS,who like Kennan could become known as someone who developed a foreign policy vision that would inform future SoSs?

The fact is the three alternatives are why the media, that has never done him any favors, listed Kerry as the obvious front runner in the speculation of whom Obama would choose. But, it is worth looking at what was behind Obama's choice. The public reasons - the Lincoln analogy of bringing in your rivals and the speculation that HRC's star power would make her enormously successful never seemed real. I suspect the reason is that Obama gave it to Clintonistas who were appalled that HRC would return to the Senate as a fairly junior Senator with little organizational power - though these same people in 2005, took the opposite view refusing to give Kerry the leadership role that he earned as standard bearer. What NO ONE said was that her background made her the best diplomat, a skilled interface with Congress or someone with a well developed foreign policy vision.

In fact, though she has been good running the State Department, she has few diplomatic accomplishments to point to (oddly, Kerry's are more impressive and not his day job), Biden, not HRC was the administration person most involved in the START efforts in the Senate, and, though she has given some foreign policy speeches, no one has postulated a Clinton foreign policy vision.

Now, back to the first conjecture, would Kerry success here have made it more likely that he would be SoS? My guess is that he would then be bypassed because he is far too valuable in the Senate. As it is, from many accounts, he did win the respect - if not the agreement - of some of the less right wing Republicans. However, it is not likely that he or anyone can move the Senate back to being functional.

One other point, note how Bumiller inserts certain things as given - like Kerry doing little from 2005 to 2008. The fact is that Kerry/Feingold eventually became the Democratic position about 6 or 7 months after it was defeated - with both Obama and Clinton, who both spoke and voted against it, taking the key elements as their plan. On the domestic side, the most important issue was really whether to filibuster Alito - something Schumer a few years after the fact said he should have led. The NYT was completely disreputable on that issue. They had an editorial begging the Senate to filibuster. This was on the same day that Kennedy and Kerry argued unsuccessfully for the leadership to do. Failing, they immediately started on their own - doing a great job reaching out to Daily Kos and other sites to get people to lobby their Senators. The NYT covered this by writing a column that could have been written on any RW site - mocking Kerry as calling in from the Swiss Alps. (He was at the same place that McCain was at - but the NYT referred to McCain being at the premier world economic summit - a place where you might expect the only man on both the Finance and SFRC to be.) They clearly were calling for Hillary to lead this - and it could have succeeded with whole hearted leadership support.)

Not to mention, Kerry was incredibly important to the 2006 effort to get Democrats elected - and was praised for this even by Rahm Emmanuel. (Here at least Bumiller does not ignore this and write of the botched joke.)

This does show what Kerry was up against - in 2004 and later. My suspicion is that although it could be personal, it is more likely that the NYT leaned to the "neocon" in 2004 and still likely does. The confusion is that on non-foreign policy issues, they are liberal and progressive. However in 2004, their main issue was foreign policy - and they praised Bush's second inaugural address' "spreading democracy" theme to the heights, without pointing out that this was NOT what he said throughout 2004 - and that the reason was that had he done that, he would have lost. It is very likely that there are many people at the NYT that do not want him as SoS. However, that will be just Obama's choice and it is clear that JK would easily be confirmed - even if they do subject him to a nasty confirmation.