Kerry will do a google hangout with the NYT Kristoff on Tuesday

[karynnj]

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/announcing-a-live-google-hangout-with-john-kerry/?_r=0

It sounds like the questioners will be very good from Kristoff's descriptions.

[JI7]

1. what is that ? q and a or interview ?

it will be interesting to see what he says. for all the criticism others throw at Kerry and things he is saying it doesn't seem like the Obama administration is doing anything to hold him back.

[beachmom]

2. There is no way he would be speaking out like this without being told to do so by Obama

That is what amazes me. The amount of people bashing Kerry while acting like Obama is the good guy who doesn't want war. Obama is his boss. So many people don't seem to get this basic government 101 lesson.

[karynnj]

3. Exactly

iI also suspect that Kerry's "accidental" solution was no accident. Not that he can't misspeak, but because Russia replied with a relatively developed plan within 3 hours and Syria joined in within a half hour of Russia.

Now I know that both countries can move faster than democracies, but this is really not that believable. I suspect that Kerry had socialized the idea with Lavrov - and likely with Ban Ki Moon. Therefore they would have thought out the possibility.

I don't think he would do this without Obama's approval as he is very loyal and respectful -- but if he saw this as a possibility to avoid war, stating it as an almost throw away solution is a way to do it. Obama still has the prerogative of accepting or rejecting it.

Incidentally The US media did not report - as the BBC did - that Kerry would not rule out that Obama would decide to wait for the UN report as "our friends" suggested and he held open the possibility of another try for a UN resolution.

I would assume that if this is rejected, then support for an attack will be even less than it is - it will reduce to just those who wanted a war before the attack - losing people who thought that chemical weapons were something that needed to be responded to. I know I would move from conflicted to absolutely not.

I was surprised at Hillary Clinton's comment that this would be a "first step" to avoiding an attack. I know it is consistent with her having been an advocate as SOS for doing more, but I always thought of her as more political. There is NO way that being to the right of Kerry on this (and likely Obama but we don't know yet) - could be the way to the nomination. I know DU is not representative, but I really do not think there is any desire to go to war.

[Mass]

6. Also, the Russian FM and Kerry had been insisting the day before that the solution could only be

diplomatic, and they had meet just a few days before this. I also doubt that Kerry made a mistake on that. He makes mistakes, but this is not the mistake that he makes.

However, it is also clear that he has not always been on message concerning Syria, as somebody who could not spin a message he did not believe in (why he did not believe in is another story). But one of the main problem following the Syria story on the US media is the problem with editor and titles. The same comment was spin as hawkish or dovish depending on the paper and the title.

Clinton's message was a case in point. Many said she endorsed the idea. Frankly, anybody who heard the totality of what she said should be surprised how hawkish she seemed. The idea to hold Russia accountable was surprising. She may, however, think she has the nomination and play for the general.

I also think the polls on an intervention are soft. Greg Sargent had a post today about a poll on Syria. Most people believed that Syria had used gas. An even greater majority wanted not to intervene. However, when asked whether they would vote for a congressperson who voted against their wishes, more than 70% said they would not change anything. My feeling is that people do not understand what the administration is trying to do (I certainly do not) and therefore are skeptical more than anything else.

Just seen that Obama says there were discussion between him and Poutine about these plans when in Russia (Tweet by Matt Viser).

[karynnj]

7. I thought HC very hawkish

-especially with her calling it "a first step" - which suggests that where Kerry and Obama are limiting this to CW - she is all in on other issues likely including regime change.

I can't believe that she is being that hawkish. She could avoid saying anything until things are less in flux. As to now running for the GE - that is precisely the mistake she made in 2008.

Interesting that Obama discussed it. That likely means he told Kerry to drop the suggestion because nothing had happened yet.

[karynnj]

4. The google hang outs are rather informal interviews

He did one before. It will be interesting. Kristoff had a column Sunday where he supported a targeted attack. As a young law student he had backpacked through Syria - including to the town where Assad's dad had massacred over 100,000 people. He was against the Iraq war.

[Inuca]

16. Are you going?

I just connected. Never done something like this before, I am curious how it works, and of course interested in teh subject. I assume this is the reason thyat Kerry had to leave the Houese Armed Forces hearing that I was kind of following early and left Hagel and Dempsey behind.

[karynnj]

17. I've never done it - so you are a step ahead of me

Just signed in from my husband's google account - Not sure how this works - all I'm seeing is people saying they are going.

[JI7]

5. i didn't watch all of the Senate Hearings, but a small part i caught involved

discussion of Russia. i noticed that Kerry seemed to go out of his way to not be so negative towards Russia. he mentioned how there have been many things we have worked with Russia on and their relationship to Syria is more of some economic than some long term alliance or ideological .

and blm has posted about Kerry continuing talks with the russian foreign minister through all of this.

when i caught the first part i mention in the hearings i was wondering about whether they were going to try to pressure russia. russia has always been the key to getting something done in this.

i really do hope this attempt at diplomatic solution to get rid of the chemical weapons works.

[beachmom]

8. Interesting article about the chain of events:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/john-kerry-in-london-campaigns-for-world-to-support-military-strike-against-syria/2013/09/09/e8ad7a72-193d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html?hpid=z1

It began when Kerry was asked early Monday whether Assad could avoid a U.S. attack.

“Sure. He could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry responded with a shrug. “But he isn’t about to.”

As Kerry flew back to Washington to help lobby lawmakers, he received a midair call from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said he had heard the secretary’s remarks and was about to make a public announcement.

The statement in Moscow came before Kerry landed.

Pretty amazing how fast it happened.

[karynnj]

9. Amazing article

This makes it seem like there is a huge desire to avoid war over this. I wonder if the change could be that Russia was given a heads up of what will be in the UN report will say. (Howard Dean on Larry O'Donnell pointed out that some of the foreign jihadis are from Dagestan in Russia. If things become unstable, those chemical weapons will affect Russia as well.

This would be a fantastic way that does make the point on chemical weapons internationally and it does prevent a disaster in Congress. I really hope that this can be firmed up quickly and well.

I saw the excerpt of the interview and Kerry looked exhausted - which should be expected given the last 6 months. It is amazing that he is able to do all he is doing.

[beachmom]

10. This one is from earlier in the day

It's a different take, and pretty sympathetic toward Kerry, something I haven't seen much of:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/09/syria-will-john-kerrys-loose-lips-save-obama.html

[karynnj]

11. That is interesting

I agree that Obama's lack of consistency did make things hard, but I do think Kerry was used as he was because the other choices Obama had were not as capable. I doubt that anyone - even Obama - could have done the 2 speeches making the case as well as Kerry. However, I think Obama should have made the first one. It is the President who has the emotional link with the country and the first speech mainly outlined what had occurred.

watched the SFRC hearings and agreed with the NYT that Dempsey was obvious in not wanting to speak and Hagel seemed uncertain and unprepared when he answered. Of Kerry, they said that some Senators were unhappy with his confident demeanor - which others liked. To me, he was like he always is - he was polite, respectful, patient and he answered all the questions that he could. There were some that he said would be Obama's choice and he had not stated his opinion. ( Nothing like Clinton's obvious anger when she asked what does it matter.) I have not had a chance to watch the House.

I think he did a far better job on the 5 sunday talk shows than McDounough did yesterday - and certainly better than Rice did in 2012. I was unimpressed with Hagel at his confirmation hearings - though I expected to impressed. I don't think Samantha Powers would be in as much control as Kerry was.

I have no idea how to assess how well he did at the EU meeting - but he seemed to get what he needed out of the meetings.

I think because he was so dominant - and the attack was SO unpopular, that Kerry, who never had Obama's popularity, has borne the brunt of most of the attacks that people have made. To me, if you look at all he did, and knowing that Teresa was dealing with serious medical issues, I am surprised that he did as well as he did.

[Mass]

14. Honestly, I did not find him great.

It really reminded me of the IWR and him trying to justify his vote. He did not seem to believe his own rational and it showed. (Does not mean others would have been better off).

This said, he may be that the rationale for this story was that they upped the ante to get something to happen (and obviously could not say the public). It was supposed to be the rationale why Kerry supported this in the first place (show we are serious so that people come to the negotiation table). It may also be that they thought they needed some concrete action to have some leverage and hopefully they caught a break. Who knows, it may be one of these 11 dimensions chess some PO supporters (sarcasm!) want so much to think Obama is playing.

The only thing I can hope is that, gaffe or not, Kerry's rhetorical example will help the country start to focus on what matters. For example, global climate change as it becomes more and more obvious that the Civil War in Syria is linked to that, or a decent economic policy [incentive to hire long term unemployed people or people above 50 would be nice]. as you can see I am getting more and more irritated by them (not that I would go to the other side). I just hope we do not lose the Senate in an adventure that was poorly packaged.

I don't think we will know the truth before a long time (may be in their memoirs?)

[wisteria]

18. It was a good piece, I read it and commented on it yesterday. n/t

[karynnj]

15. Surprising opinion poll numbers for Kerry

CNN: approve 47 disapprove 42 and FOX: 43, 40 - which is not that different than when he became S0S. As the polls were done both done from September 6 through 8 --- last Friday through Sunday -- they are considerably higher than I would have expected. These are, of course, not fantastic but as the point person on an unpopular issue, they are not bad.

This is important only in the sense if he had Dick Cheney like numbers, his ability to be a spokesperson for the President domestically would have been damaged. It also suggests that people are ignoring the silly twisting the media does. Internationally, it is clear that he is respected by his peers.

(placed here - not to generate a thread seen by DU - where his approval rating is much lower.

Link - http://pollingreport.com/k.htm I,ve been following Obama's numbers on polling report,com and looked to see what their new polls on other things was.