Senator Kerry defends Obama against GOP critics

[Mass]

Glen Johnson, so the usual level of passive aggressive behavior against Kerry (or any Dem for thye matter), but interesting however.

Given the general tone of the article, and the fact it ends with Setti Warren campaigning in NH against Romney, this is more an exercise defending Romney and the myth of the moderate MA Republican (cough, cough, Brown), than anything, but this is still interesting to read. Mr Johnson should learn than campaigning for a candidate is an exercise of democracy, not a wish for a higher office (though Warren may want to move higher at some point).

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/03/11/senator-kerry-defends-obama-against-gop-critics/DxpKwZ1MXHuCjvOswDY1jK/story.html

Yet the reality is that he did not win one term, let alone two. And he has instead spent the past seven-plus years in the US Senate, focusing his attention on his duties as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and - more recently - as the senior member from Massachusetts.

This past week, though, Kerry showed that the presidential gene has not receded, as he launched a broad-based defense of the Obama administration. It only underscored the belief that he is a leading candidate for secretary of state should fellow Democrat Barack Obama win a second term in November.

...
On Monday, Kerry delivered a sharply partisan speech to the nonpartisan New England Council, castigating congressional Republicans for blocking even the most mundane accomplishment as part of an effort to prevent Obama’s reelection.

On Tuesday, it was a floor statement and TV interviews rebutting an op-ed article about Iran written by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, whom Kerry dealt with while he was governor of Massachusetts.

Kerry showed this past week that the presidential gene has not receded.


On Thursday, Kerry himself wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post that detailed his complaints about Romney in writing.

[YvonneCa]

1. "Kerry showed this past week that the presidential gene has not receded"...

...I'm surprised that anyone thought it had.

[karynnj]

2. Your comments are fantastic

What is completely funny is the provincial way both the Boston paper's reacted to Kerry's op-ed. The fact is that he is the undisputed Senate Democratic expert on foreign policy. His position, his thoughtfulness and his experience make this so - and make him the obvious surrogate for the President here. In addition, as seen by his own run and the START floor debate, there are very very few people who can speak as clearly and well on difficult foreign policy issues as Kerry.

Rebutting Romney is not something that the Secretary of State should do as she is not suppose to be partisan. It was good to have Kerry explaining why Obama is right and Romney does not really understand the situation.

I second your frustration that this, like most things, brings talk of wanting a position. Yet, if excelling at defending Obama on foreign policy was the path to Secretary of State, Kerry would have been confirmed as SoS in 2009. I really do not think he will be picked when Hillary leaves. Consider that the MA seat would not necessarily go to a Democrat - especially if Brown loses. (Not to mention if Brown loses and the loss of Kerry's seat could swing the Senate - it won't happen.)

[MBS]

3. I agree with everything you said here.

The perennially small-minded/provincial outlook of the Boston media drives me NUTS.

[Mass]

4. Sometimes, I just think they hate Dems.

Today, they have an absolutely absurd article about E. Warren and how she wrote some mean things about some important democrats in her book. As much as I am torn about her book for other reasons, her criticisms were spot on.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-10/metro/31140219_1_credit-card-bankruptcy-bill-political-party

Once again, criticizing people for real reasons is not a problem. Making up criticisms, as the Globe does in both these articles, is just plain silly. Sigh, this is the media MA has to live with.

[MBS]

5. Well said. I agree completely! N/T

[karynnj]

6. Agree

I suspect that the article, clearly not written in the almost adoring fashion that anything about Brown is, really is more likely to define Warren as independent and principled than a "rock thrower".

I know nothing about the attack on Murray, but the attacks on Clinton and Biden are common place on DU - and justified - as long as they are put in perspective. The bankruptcy bills - that I would bet that the bank loving Brown would have voted for too - were horrendous. Clinton, Biden and Edwards voted for the 2001 version - and all deserved (and got) the criticism for it.

Biden's record on women is very mixed. He chaired the Thomas hearings and cut off testimony before many who would back Hill could speak. Yet, he also was the sponsor of the bill on violence against women. If Warren were speaking of the Thomas trial, I would hope that BIDEN agrees with her in his heart of heart.

The fact is there is something to be said in being willing to say your side is wrong - when it is. The counter, if they want to make this an issue, would be a list of unacceptable things (to MA voters) that prominent Republicans (they could just use Santorum for a long list) said or did - is Brown willing to say they are wrong?