|
Edited on Tue May-03-11 06:35 PM by karynnj
It may not be your family or your friends, but it is the people who count at this point. Those people are the 99 other Senators, foreign leaders, and the administration. Even the DC political media gave him enormous praise for the competent, graceful way he led the effort to get the START treaty passed. Even though the climate change legislation did not pass, there was enormous praise from both sides of the aisle for his brilliance, his work ethic, his passion and his selflessness. Lindsey Graham and others were blown away that Kerry were pull T Bone Pickens in because it helped the plan and helped the likelihood it could pass. The ONLY other people Kerry need impress are the voters of MA.
Kerry's family, friends and supporters - many from as many as 45 years ago had a celebration for him in Boston last year. I can tell you - and the other DU JK people there will back me up - that NO ONE thought or said anything about not fighting back. There was huge praise for a fantastic (and ongoing) career. The fact is that had Kerry quietly lived his live after 1971, he would still have done more than any of the snark prone clowns in the media for history - because it called America to a higher moral ground on foreign policy and helped toward ending Vietnam. Winning the Presidency would have capped a remarkable career - all done against powerful forces, that knew what they were dealing with as early as 1971. You seem to forget that without Kerry, it is highly unlikely that Obama would be President now. Assume Dean, Gephardt or Edwards got the nomination - it is highly unlikely that Obama would have gotten the speech. Kerry himself picked Obama, having seen him at the advise of Kerry's Illinois fundraiser, now the ambassador to the UK. Not to mention, 2004 would have been a FAR worse loss with any of them and it would have been harder to bounce back in 2006 - something Kerry helped with.
The fact is that as a leader and as a person, John Kerry is not defined by those smears - he is defined by the man he is and the accomplishments - even if his name is not on them - that he has made. He knows who he is - and has the love and respect of the people who are closest to him. It is really amazing to have seen people who knew him since college and who after all that time have incredible respect and love for him. One group who surprised Kerry at that party were his crew - and what was clear to all of us was the intense bond between them. They had trusted Kerry with their lives when they were young and he is very clearly their hero. Very few people have that.
As to Kerry contributing to the Democrats being "weak on defense", you completely missed that in 2006, even conservatives like George Will admitted that Kerry had been right as to how to deal with non-state terrorism. That helped COUNTER the view that Democrats were weak on defense. Not to mention, where did Obama's campaign strategy on defense and foreign policy come from - the key spokesperson, who was more specific than Obama himself, was Kerry. (His Iraq plan was Kerry/Feingold with a slightly longer time line.)
Not to mention, if ANY Democrat had worked as hard and well as a surrogate for Kerry, as Kerry did for Obama - he might have won in spite of everything.
Elections are not all equally easy. The fact is that a Democrat beating Bush, who was at 60% approval in December 2003 was a longshot. Throw in that the media, the powers that be, and the Catholic Church, due JUST to the certain replacement of Rehnquist, who was pro-life. The fact is that I doubt Obama, running his 2008 campaign could have won in 2004 - charismatic as he was.
Frankly, I do not care if you can't get pass Kerry losing - and then internalizing every negative cliche that is put out about Kerry - then backing away when challenged - but it gets very tiring.
Especially your need to constantly say that Obama was better. Obama did win the presidency and is doing a wonderful job in extremely difficult times. He will likely be seen - and should be - as one of the greatest Presidents. You do not need to constantly use him to bash (yes bash) Kerry - it is pretty silly as Kerry gave everything he had in 2004 AND in 2008 for a victory.
To say Kerry contributed to the idea that Democrats were weak on defense is asinine and insulting. One reason he came close to winning in 2004 - when security and defense were the issue is that he was seen as strong and knowledgeable on defense and foreign policy. Obama did not win 2008 because he somehow was seen as stronger on defense than Kerry had in 2004 - the issues had changed.
|