New York Times article today

[beachmom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/politics/obama-expected-to-name-kerry-as-secretary-of-state.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President Obama is leaning strongly toward naming John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator and unsuccessful Democratic nominee for president eight years ago, to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state, according to administration officials and friends of Mr. Kerry.

But the announcement will be delayed, at least until later this week and maybe beyond, because of the Connecticut school shooting and what one official called “some discomfort” with the idea of Mr. Obama’s announcing a national security team in which the top posts are almost exclusively held by white men.

The article is fairly annoying with a few instances pointing out Kerry's strengths. Here's an example of the insult plus back handed compliment technique:

Mr. Kerry has worked hard to deepen his relationship with Mr. Obama. The president has at times considered him long-winded and a throwback to a previous generation of diplomats, aides said. But Mr. Kerry impressed Mr. Obama and Mr. Donilon when he was sent to deal with Hamid Karzai, the famously unpredictable president of Afghanistan, after Mr. Karzai’s supporters rigged a presidential election in 2009 and refused a second round of voting.

Mr. Kerry also visited Pakistan several times to try to ease recurrent tensions, including a two-week visit after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Pakistani officials tried to get Mr. Kerry to write what they called a “blood oath” that the United States would never take action to seize Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Mr. Kerry found a diplomatic way out, saying the United States had no “designs” on Pakistan’s weapons.

“It meant nothing,” a member of Mr. Obama’s national security team said later. “And it solved the crisis. Quite artfully.”

I mean that's great that he is probably getting the post but compare this to all the praise the Hillary appointment got, when Kerry actually has a good track record of doing good diplomatic work.

[ProSense]

1. Pure silliness.

Kerry helped to propel Barack Obama to the national stage. He was Obama's top surrogate in 2008. Obama acknowledged that Kerry played a huge part in his election. Kerry has been tapped for diplomatic missions by President Obama. He was selected by the President as his debate partner.

With that history, the NYT produces a bullshit article about Kerry working to "deepen his relationship," citing unnamed aides maligning Kerry and attributing their nasty comments to the President?

Beyond silly.

[DoBotherMe]

4. Exactly!

Who writes this stuff? Only Tom Oliphant and EJ Dionne should be allowed to write about JK. The rest of them are confabulators. Dana ; )

[Mass]

6. Explain what?

[politicasista]

7. delete. not important n/t

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:43 PM - Edit history (2)

[karynnj]

8. Explain what?

These are 4 inside the belt way pundits who were advocates of Susan Rice. They are angry. They are focusing that anger on McCain and Graham. However, only two people had any say in this decision - Rice and Obama.

Why are you posting this here - it has NOTHING to do with the op which is on John Kerry.

At the risk of seeming insensitive, I think that not everything revolves around race. Susan Rice was not hurt because she was black or a woman. Two of the last three SOSs were black and two out of the three were women. You could argue that white males were under represented!

I suspect that especially among Republicans in the Senate, the problem is that she has not worked to establish relationships with the Congress. (Stepping into dangerous areas, one thing I am reading between the lines is that she is a fairly typical fast track, high achievement person who is always focused on pleasing those higher up and was unhelpful and disinterested in anyone lower or a peer. This, incidentally, would explain the praise from Obama and Kerry (who she worked for in 2004). It is surprising that the Clintons were not there praising her. Could that be explained by HRC being on the security team with her? )

That lack of a good personal relationship made her the butt of their anger over what they think were lies - for political reasons immediately before an election. One question is why the State Department told their people NOT to speak on Benghazi and why the various intelligence people were not there. Was this an attempt to see if Rice could pass the test of doing these shows avoiding it blowing up into controversy?? If you think that unfair, there have been at least 10 or so things Kerry did - all excellently - that the media spoke of as "tests" - and he had FAR more experience than Rice ever had - so tests were less needed.

[Blaukraut]

9. Your observation makes a lot of sense

I didn't think this was about race or gender, either. History just doesn't bear that out.

[politicasista]

10. link deleted n/t

[karynnj]

2. That is infuriating, but typical NYT

They were in love with HRC since 1992 and built her up as Senator (where she really was not all that remarkable), Presidential candidate, and SOS. They even rewrote history when real history was less good - notably that she immediately picked herself up after losing to Obama. This ignores that she denied reality for at least a month and then stayed away from the Senate for 1 to 2 months after conceding when the Senate was still in session. (Conversely, they have written that Kerry did little for years after losing - forgetting Kerry/Feingold - which HRC opposed for political reasons.

With Kerry, there are so many examples where they presented things in the worst possible way - most glaringly to me in two instances.

- In 2004, when their public editor defended Jori Wilgoren, who had called Kerry a "social loner". Their defense included that she spoke to at least 20 of his life long friends! (because all social loners have over 20 life long friends, who are intensely loyal to them.)

- In 2005, when their first article on the Alito filibuster, spoke of Kerry cavorting on the slopes in Switzerland. This after the NYT editorialized for "someone" to filibuster - but I guess they did not mean Kerry and Kennedy. Even years later, when Schumer spoke of his regret at not leading a filibuster, they did not mention he and HRC actually were angered by the Senators K doing so.

As to not giving credit, I complained to a writer for his article on the Housing bill that Kerry introduced in three Congresses getting progressively more support that was accepted into the Banking committee bill, which highlighted Reed, and mentioned something like 5 Senators, ignoring Kerry, I was told that he was a "treasure", but the article was more on Reed than the bill. Apparently, the fact that he was lead sponsor did not count - even though they, like most of the media, wrote in 2004 that he had little legislation as used a criteria never used for anyone else that it only counted if he was the lead sponsor AND it passed as a stand alone bill under his name.

[Mass]

3. I have given up on the media in general

(Yes, I know I am a broken record).

So, this does not surprise me at all.

[MBS]

11. I thought this article was drivel

1. First, as others in this thread have noted, the NYT has always been weird about JK, to the point of sometimes-inexcusable journalistic malpractice. Their reporting on his presidential campaign was often infuriating; and don't get me started on oped writers like Gail Collins
2. Second, this is not reporting, but high-level (or, rather low-level) gossip, passed on to the "reporter" (and I use the term loosely) , I suspect, by someone on (or near to people on ) the Obama/White House staff who has a highly personal Agenda, and is trying to promote that agenda by passing on non-information to lazy reporters from the NYT.
3. Third, the agenda of my hypothesized "source" seems to me self-interested; it's about trying to influence the President in a self-interested and the most tacky possible way. Certainly, neither the story nor the inferred agenda behind it can be said to help either the President's decision-making process, nor does it help his reputation -- since the story, as "reported" (again , I use the term loosely) in the NYT, gives a whiff of a suggestion of the President as dithering.
I find myself disliking both the reporter and the hypothesized (by me) "source".

A big BLEAH to both of them.

[karynnj]

13. Great!! Wonderful insight

The Obama white house really has had its share of leakers who really do not have the President's reputation at heart. This and other leaks almost suggest that they might need to get rid of a few of the worst of these people. (The sooner the better as Obama's power to control people will diminish as his second tern continues.

Given the position, it is useful to remember that the NYT helped the neo cons. Sultzberger protected and defended Judith Miller. In addition, while the NYT is socially and economically liberal, the owners - the Sultzbergers are liberal Republicans, who are likely closer to Romney on Israel than to Senator Kerry. (I don't know if this was the root of their 2004 and after weirdness with Kerry. )

[wisteria]

12. No surprises here.

Consider the source. I don't think they have ever said anything nice about Sen. Kerry without adding a slight.