I was rather surprised at her question on whether Kerry ever thinks of having killed in war. I have never heard this asked of Eisenhower, Powell or McCain. It was interesting seeing the footage of him going to the church, being on the boat, and hearing of him buying candy for kids and speaking a bit of Vietnamese.
On the other issues:
His comments on North Korea were interesting - and while his comment that the way the uncle was abruptly arrested was similar to how people quickly went from insiders to arrested (and killed) under Saddam Hussein made me think of how much fear that has to generate among the people immediately below him. It has to have the effect that he will hear no constructive criticism.
He was incredibly honest on Syria - there is a rising AQ presence. He still spoke of Geneva 2. I really wonder if the US can move to NOT being trapped to continue supporting a SA and Gulf state proxy war against Iran. (That this is a legacy that started under Bush, but greatly increased in the first Obama term makes it hard to change, but this gets worse all the time.)
On Afghanistan, he said nothing new - they are waiting for Kharzai to sign. Interesting that he answered "No" to whether if the US left, he was convinced girls would still be able to attend schools.
Reading the print coverage, I like that Kerry has made his main focus the environment. His comments on wanting to work with the 6 counties that are related to the w aters of the Mekong Delta to work together to preserve what downstream countries have depended on for generations.
The AP had a pretty good article - positive - but they made one completely inexplicable error. They said it was Kerry's first trip there since 1969. Did the reporter completely miss one of the major accomplishments of the 2004 Democratic nominee?
I posted a comment on that at the end of the thread. I suspect that it may be less error than it is actually the counter to the entire nonsense that Kerry is less concerned than HRC, who they claim was focused on Asia. In fact, in both Vietnam and the Philippines, Kerry did far more to help the American position in Asia than Clinton did as SoS. (Burma was a success, but the main effort seemed to be TPP and moving more ships to the Pacific.)
Link to my post (and indirectly to the OP) - http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014672908#post23 ( My response is really more to the very whiny article responding to all the "Kerry is better SoS" articles.) I really don't get why the Clinton people don't simply say that nothing Kerry does changes the evaluation of what she did. Nor, does it hurt her media/ TPTB propelled 2016 run. In fact, in the general election, the BETTER the state of the US foreign policy, the better for her. (They kind of know this - as they claim if Iran works - it was HRC's effort on sanctions - ignoring that NOW when support in the US is needed, she is completely quiet.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
