Is this the Kerry 2016 thread?

[karynnj]

59. Clinton was a loser too - she got less far than Kerry, who had Ohio not been rigged would have

President.

I think both did incredibly well, but they had different goals. Kerry was in no way less intelligent or slower than Clinton, in fact, he was able to set up times where the Republicans skewered themselves. Hillary actually had the easier job in the interactions. Her goal was to defend herself and the administration. Kerry's goal in the Benghazi questions was more complex. He defended Hillary Clinton, but had to do it without angering the Republicans who will vote on the nomination.

Ron Johnson was out of control with BOTH. While Hillary, won the emotional point and Johnson was seen going over the line, Kerry quietly answered the question - Congress WAS shown what happened - and Johnson (and many other Republicans) skipped the several hours hearing with tapes and explanations.

Comparing the two just by these appearances is unfair to both of them because the hearings were so different. Hillary went in knowing the Republicans would attack. Kerry went in knowing that McCain, in addition to Clinton and Warren would endorse him with praise. The new members of the committee include some tea party people.


One of the FEW substantial differences was that they seem to have somewhat different views on the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. Hillary was a Senator, but I suspect her view was more based on the Clinton years than her years in the minority as a very Junior Senator. Kerry reached out to several who he had major disagreements with on policy arguing that he wanted to work with them on issues. For those of us who watched SFRC hearings, since 2009, there were complaints on the committee - often expressed by Lugar - that they were not getting as much from the state department as they thought needed. Kerry, with his 28 year history with the committee, repeated often that he wanted their input and wanted to meet with them.