Reply #13: But McCain's had plenty of not so straight turns

[karynnj]

but they go unrecognized.

I agree with you. I do think that this week shows part of the dynamics.

The party clearly put Hillary, Schumer and Menendez as the point people on the port issue. They likely should have added Kerry, as he spoke of port safety daily.

Clearly this was intended to help Hillary. But, Kerry's position - emphasizing the cronyism and the negligence in the process, avoids the stridency of Schumer and Hillary.

But, when the facts become available and are examined - Kerry will likely do some TV - he then has his current position (which will still be true), the fact that he spoke daily on port security in 2004, and all his knowledge of the relationships between terrorism and the UAE.

Hillary's demand for legislation to get the 45 day review was in essence undercut by Bill's recommendation to the UAE to voluntarily have the investigation - while the deal really goes through. (That they are getting the money is known, but are any of their people getting reports from the people still working there - if yes and it becomes known this could blow up in Bill's face.) It also makes Hillary and Schumer's demands to still have the legislation seem weird.

The other problem is that Bill had a million positive comments on the UAE - if we find it is a risk, those comments feed people who say it was racism. He also said that the ports shouldn't be run by foreign governments/ I assume he wants people to ignore that he said governments rather than just companies - because the Clinton administration approved the British company, which was not a government. Still parsing words, he is.

The point is that while Bill is her biggest asset, he's also her biggest liability. Kerry also has the advantage that he has always done what he thinks is right and (I think) is too honest to misrepresent a change in view as Clinton just did.