There has been some terribly unfortunate talk lately of President-elect Obama nominating Senator John Kerry for Secretary of State. To see why this would be so inappropriate, we have to consider what the Secretary of State will actually be required to do, in the context of two ongoing wars as well as ongoing covert interventions in Iran and Pakistan.
As Obama seeks to end the Iraq War and get Afghanistan under control, he needs a very effective and credible communicator who can explain his policies to the American public and convince us – across the political spectrum - to support his policies. He needs a change agent in Iraq.
Kerry’s doesn’t represent change; instead, like John McCain, Kerry is a reminder of the generational political battles about Vietnam that Obama promised to leave in the past. Unlike the wisdom shown by Obama in the leadup to the Iraq War, Kerry supported the war before he opposed it, showing that he really hadn't learned the lessons of Vietnam.
This is partly why Kerry did a lousy job of debating George W. Bush in 2004 over Iraq, because as an early supporter of the intervention who later rejected the Bush policy, Kerry either had to admit to having been wrong before or being wrong in the present.
As I said in my 2006 post explaining why Kerry Ought not be nominated.In the September 30, 2004 debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry, the word "mistake" arose 13 times in the context of Iraq, offering Bush ample opportunity to admit that he had made at least one mistake. Kerry admitted to having made significant mistakes while George Bush admitted to none.
BUSH: My opponent says help is on the way, but . . . it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.
Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to
lead troops.
LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.
KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse? http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.htmlApparently, much of the public believed Kerry's mistake was worse - admitting a mistake, changing his story, and becoming a "flip-flopper" - because Bush went on to win the election. The American Public Does Not Reward Apologizers.
It's natural that we Democrats should feel some loyalty to Sen. John Kerry since he -somehow - ended up as our standard bearer in 2004. But Senator John Kerry's latest mess proves that he just isn't up to the task of taking back the presidency for the Democrats in 2008.Kerry caused his most recent embarrassment to the Democratic Party by telling a joke that fairly made him (and us) sound like condescending elitists, criticizing US troops for not having enough education - or not being intelligent enough - to avoid military service in Iraq. His actual words, for those who haven't heard them 100 times already:
"You know, education . . . if you make the most of it, and you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq. "Kerry said this in a campaign speech, on the stump, in front of cameras. Didn't he know that joking about the troops could come off badly, when over a hundred of them died in Iraq last month?
Of course, what Kerry intended to communicate with his joke was the exact opposite of what he said, which is precisely why he ought not be our candidate again in 2008; Kerry can't even get past the mid-term elections, when he's not even on the ballot, without inadvertantly embarrassing himself and his Party. These Swift Boats came out of Kerry's own mouth, so we cannot blame the Republicans. John Kerry: I Told You So!
It is crucial for the success of Obama's presidency that he not nominate Kerry for secretary of state or for any other high-publicity position representing the Administration before the news media. The moment Obama nominated Kerry, the Republicans would remind us of Kerry's foolish comments from a couple of years ago, and those embarrassing comments that ended Kerry’s 2008 presidential race would dominate news cycles for the foreseeable future. Kerry’s nomination would have to be confirmed by the US Senate, and the Republicans would take every opportunity to remind us what a bumbler he is.
We also need a person of courage and decisiveness as Secretary of State. When an audience member at once of Kerry’s speeches was electrically shocked (Tased) by police simply for stating his opinion, Kerry said nothing. This moment could have been one of historical change in the fight against Tasing of Americans for political speech. Instead, it showed Kerry’s lack of backbone.
Kerry is not a man of courage. He is an inveterate public bumbler whose would only bring highly public embarrassment to President-elect Obama if Kerry were nominated.
10 comments:
Francis, Although, I am a significant contributor to the John Kerry Campaign, I must say that I agree wirh your general assessment. Great post!
Francis, in my opinion, Kerry is Lurch,a big fn' green monster, he didn't care about winning that election, he was a plant for the bushes, just reading your headlines gets me upset.
when i calm down i will read the rest of your post.
sorry, but that really, really gets me going
francis, you are right when you say Kerry has not done well either as a debater and has made some crucial mistakes, such as voting to give Bush the right to invade Iraq and sounding silly when he tried to apologize. But you could say that about a number of politicians. Many people were fooled, including Colin Powell. He actually believed that the info he was given was credible evidence and a reason to invade Iraq.
But to say Kerry is not courageous is unfair and untrue. Not only did he volunteer to go to war twice, he saved a number of his fellow soldiers. Kerry could have come home from the war and used his military resume to get some cushy job. Instead, he joined with other Vietnam vets to speak out against the war. Moreover, he spoke so bravely and eloquently against that war at a sub-committee hearing that he almost made committee members cry. As a prosecuting attorney, he went after Mafia leaders and put them in jail.
I know he's made some mistakes but not lately, and not while helping Obama to become president. But when other them other sorry democratic politicians, including black caucus members, were reluctant to go against Clinton, afraid of losing favor with them, Kerry and Ted Kennedy came out for him early, giving him more credibility among democratic leaders and the American people. As a senior adviser, he was invaluable to Obama; and, though it wasn't seen on many stations, Kerry gave one of the greatest speeches at the democratic convention, clearly exposing McCain as a so-called maverick in the senate who had turned to the right-wing to gain the presidency. That took a lot of courage too, because he and McCain were once very good friends.
No, he's not a great speaker and has made some mistakes. But, like many of us, he has growned. I think he deserves some key position in an Obama administration-- if not Secretary of State, then some other.
I think Bill Richardson would make a much better Secretary of State.
MacDaddy, I agree that Kerry supported Obama at a critical time, but he should also support Obama now by not demanding a position where he will be in over his head. He might make an able Veterans Affairs chief, because of his interest in helping veterans, and in that position he would be less likely to be on the news everyday, talking gobbledy gook when Americans want clear answers and strategies.
Look at Kerry's presidential campaign of 2004. I know it's unlikely, but the US might have to engage in a war someday and try to win it. Would we want the war fought with the same aimlessness of Kerry's 2004 campaign.
And why did Kerry nominate john Edwards, who has turned out to be an empty shirt? That doesn't show very good judgment on Kerry's part.
I agree with Kathy. Richardson is far more qualified to be secretary of state, having actually represented and negotiated for our country in international forums. Richardson was a much more effective surrogate for Obama and his support for Obama was far more courageous, given his connections to the Clinton.
It's true that Kerry went to the Vietnam War, but that war has since been discredited. Even as a young man, Kerry did not understand the difference between defending our country and invading someone else's.
Richardson beats Kerry hands down, and the only reason to give it to Kerry over Richardson is that, like John Edwards, Kerry is a white man.
francis, I agree that Kerry might do better in a position other than Secretary of State and that Richardson would be a better Secretary of State. But I think it's unfair to judge him almost solely by the 3004 campaign. Frankly, the fault lay with the stupidity of pro-war, go-get-some-Muslims Americans who were more than willing to vote against their own interest.
What I think is missing is any kind of acknowledgment of Kerry's growth since the 2004 campaign and the great work he's done since that time, including his work for Obama. Because of that work, he should be and will be rewarded.
We need to remember that the 004 campaign was totally different: it was done at a time when our economy was relatively good and Americans were more susceptible to smear-mongering. Were it not for the poor state of today's economy, Obama might well have lost as well. That's not about Obama or Kerry so much as it's about Americans ability to allow itself to voting against its own interest and real progress.
I'm neutral about Kerry as Secretary of State; I think he'd be okay, but I think that there may be better options (Richardson and Albright being the most obvious options in my mind).
Frankly, I'm more worried about the Treasury Secretary at the moment - too many of the names being floated helped cause the current problems.
Addition:
Rice would be good, as well.
I agree that Richardson would make a better Sec. of State, but I hear that it more unlikely now. :(
Kerry has made some blunders, but I don't think that this is the job for him.
Frances, I enjoyed the pictures. Whoever Obama picks, I believe will do a good job. I don't think he'll let anyone push him into choosing who he does not want in that position.
Post a Comment