NYT's James Traub on John Kerry, Latest 'Decent, Serious, Honorable' Dem Destroyed by GOP 'Attack Machine'
James Traub, a contributing writer for the New York Times Sunday magazine, contributed a very positive 5,000-word profile of Obama foreign-affairs maven (and failed liberal Democratic presidential candidate) Sen. John Kerry for the Sunday magazine, under the online headline “How John Kerry Tries to Put Out Diplomatic Fires.” The table of contents and print edition headlines simply hailed Kerry as “The All-American,” while deep in the article itself Traub lamented that in 2004, “Kerry seemed to be the latest in a long line of decent, serious, honorable Democratic presidential candidates cut to ribbons by the Republican attack machine and bested by G.O.P. contenders whom voters would much rather have a beer with.”
(Traub isn’t fond of the G.O.P. In October 2010 Traub took to CNN to rant against the newly conservative Republican Party’s “war on competence and professionalism.”)
John Kerry surprised a lot of people when he endorsed Barack Obama for president in early 2008. Kerry was a longtime friend of Obama’s chief rival, Hillary Clinton. He had served in the Senate for a quarter-century and had built a reputation as a cautious, incremental figure -- like Clinton herself. But for Kerry the time had come for a decisive break with the past. “I felt very strongly we needed a new narrative for the country,” he told me during a long conversation last fall.
....
John Kerry is ready, willing and able. And hardworking. And loyal. Hillary Clinton has been, too. Obama is a “transformational” figure who is comfortable surrounding himself with pillars of the foreign-policy establishment. This may explain why he has proved to be less bold than many of his supporters had hoped. Would a Secretary Kerry help Obama make that decisive break with the past? Or would he offer four more years of the same?
Traub traveled with Kerry to Afghanistan and Pakistan in May, painting Kerry as perhaps simply too civilized and proper to have been an effective presidential candidate.
That night, when he returned to Kabul, Kerry had a long dinner with Karzai. Afghanistan’s erratic president has worn out the patience of some of America’s most senior statesman, including Vice President Joe Biden and Richard Holbrooke, the late envoy to the region. But Kerry’s roots run deep in the New England gentry, and his fine sense of social codes may be better suited to the courts of Central Asia and the Middle East than to presidential debates. Kerry denies that he is quite so genteel as all that. “There’s a time to blow your top and walk out of the room,” he told me, “and a time to be totally in quiet listening mode when somebody else’s mind is open to you.”
Traub trumpeted the anti-war view in Afghanistan.
Why, then, does Kerry bother? Why is he racing back and forth to put out the fires being set by a serial arsonist? I asked him about this on the short flight from Kabul to Islamabad. Kerry tried to put the best possible face on what he had learned. Despite the warlords in Kabul, he said, Karzai had appointed some talented officials at the provincial and district levels. “It’s a mixed bag,” he concluded gamely. Kerry knew Karzai’s failings as well as anyone, but he was not prepared to abandon Afghanistan’s president, because he was not prepared to abandon Afghanistan. But why not? With Bin Laden dead, and with the cost of the war becoming unsustainable at a time of grave financial problems, why not declare victory and go home? A majority of the public, a growing body of congressmen, Republican as well as Democratic, and many leading foreign-policy thinkers and regional experts are calling for the troops to come home as fast as possible.
Traub confessed that Kerry is so nuanced one often has no idea where he stands, before bewailing the unfairness of Republican attacks during the 2004 presidential campaign, without bothering to comment on Kerry's flip-flopping on the war, or the validity of accusations leveled on his war record by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The last time most Americans saw John Kerry, he was tying himself in knots trying to rebut the charge that he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it. That was unfair, like a great deal that happened during the 2004 campaign, but politics are unfair. Kerry seemed to be the latest in a long line of decent, serious, honorable Democratic presidential candidates cut to ribbons by the Republican attack machine and bested by G.O.P. contenders whom voters would much rather have a beer with....
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hey James Traub you idiot! Kerry was a lousy candidate!
Submitted by Mary Louise Turner on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 8:55am.
Earth to James Traub: John "Lurch" Kerry was a lousy candidate in 2004. He was (and still is) the world's worst speaker, a guaranteed cure for insomnia; listen to him on the Senate floor if you want proof! It's no wonder our foreign policy's in the tank: pathetic buffoons such as Mr. Kerry are helping Ears out!
Yea, well
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 8:56am.
I still bet he could Primary Obama right now.
Run Johny Run
Unintentional comedy gold
Submitted by Reaver on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:51am.
Unintentional comedy gold here, when Traub says “Obama is a “transformational” figure who is comfortable surrounding himself with pillars of the foreign-policy establishment” is he really referring to John f-ing Lurch Kerry and her thighness Shrillary Rotten Clinton? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Serious, honorable Democratic candidates?
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:08am.
Name one!
Oh my, the 04 campaign was "unfair"? John Effin Kerry was for the war, before he was against it. And, let's not forget, study hard, do well in college, or you'll end up in Iraq. The man is an ass, a tall one, but still an ass.
Not a candidate
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:55am.
But the last honorable Democrat that I know of before he retired was Zell Miller.
He's like Reagan in that Reagan didn't leave the Democrat party, but the party left him. Zell's the same way except he never made the switch.
-Jon
John 'why the long face'
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:09am.
John 'why the long face' F**king Kerry???? Decent??? Yeah..............in a real arrogant, condascending, self-important, gigilo-ish sort of way............Serious??? Well, he always LOOKS serious - as in seriously boring and dull...........................Honorable?? I think that's how the enemies of our country view him - either that or foolish, but they'll let him believe that he's being honorable!!
This is more new-age lib re-definition of terms.
And that GOP attack machine is really a low-down dirty muck-raking organization, that's for sure.................so good at what they do, in fact, that the lib and MSM attack machine patterns themselves in the same fashion when they are going after ANY Republican or Conservative candidate............but they aren't nearly as effective.
"John Kerry is ready, willing
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:23am.
"John Kerry is ready, willing and able. And hardworking. And loyal."
Are we talking about the same John Kerry who fronted Vietnam Veterans Against the War?
"But Kerry’s roots run deep in the New England gentry, . . . "
In other words, he's the product of an entitled patrician class. Born into wealth, educated at a prep school in Switzerland, second marriage into the Heinz fortune -- a far cry from an Abraham Lincoln story.
". . . and his fine sense of social codes may be better suited to the courts of Central Asia and the Middle East than to presidential debates."
And that's the guy the author labels an "All American." One of Kerry's great weaknesses in the 2004 campaign was a failure to convince average hard-working Americans that he is genuine and relates to their lives and aspirations, and not one "better suited to the courts of Central Asia and the Middle East than to presidential debates."
Maybe he should run for president of Turkestan. Or president of the Newport Yacht Club.
BTW, despite his repeated claims over the years of having been in Cambodia during the Vietnam War when President Nixon denied a US presence there, an investigation concluded that he lied. That investigation was performed by none other than the Washington Post, who used Kerry's own wartime diary and the logs of his swift boat squadron to conclude that Kerry was close to the Cambodian border at times, but never in Cambodia.
The Swift Boaters were correct.
Please don't accuse me
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 10:20am.
of defending John F'in Kerry. I spent several years in a Navy assault boat unit. Even if the logs didn't document crossing the Cambodian border, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If we weren't supposed to be somewhere, or doing something in particular, we made sure the log entry didn't contradict our radio transmissions.
That said, I also know enough to counter the LSM folks that would say of the SBVFT, "they weren't on his boat, so they wouldn't know." Crews were often interchanged for reasons of personal injury, maintenance, having to be somewhere for admin purposes.... Every boat knew what was up on every other boat. Maybe not that day, but within a couple. On the beach the crews drank and ran around with other crews. There were no secrets in the unit.
Kerry started the whole thing with his "Reporting for duty" crap. He turned his back on duty when he sided with the liars of the Winter Soldier Project. He's a self-serving gigolo that will never forgive America for denying him the White House.
John Kerry
Submitted by misterbee241 on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 10:22am.
denounced his band of brothers as murderers, rapists and plunderers before Congress. What is honorable about that? And why is this cretin given a lifetime seat in the Senate by the people of Massachusetts? John Kerry rates right up there with Jane Fonda far as I'm concerned.
Our John F'ing ?
Submitted by desert3030 on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 11:34am.
Did you know he serve in Viet Nam? What and educated slime ball wannabe. He literally sucked his way, punched his limited ticket to what and where he is.
I still picture him, and always will, and will always remind any one I can. Sitting in Congress lying about his service and the war, then the topper throwing medals over the WH wall. A true Liberal, confront him with the truth and watch him panic.
Worse
Submitted by bbboss on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:52pm.
John "Effen.." Kerry is far worse than Hanoi Jane. He should have known better, in fact, he did....he lied through his teeth virtually destroying and throwing away the lives of countless soldiers. I had been home from Vietnam for a little over a year when I first heard him and his "testimony". I was a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War...joined while in country. That stopped when I heard the lying bastard say those awful things about me and my buddies ...I have well hated that monster since....1972.....so it was easy to work my butt off to keep him out of the WH in 2004.......
Good analysis, Galvanic!
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 11:00am.
I have to laugh at the "ready...willing...able...hardworking...loyal...", because the same qualities apply to Marco, my Golden Retriever. Marco's only political aspiration is to be master of the family room sofa when we aren't watching a game or a movie. And Marco is not a tax or environmental hypocrite like Lurch.
Honestly, Lurch ran a horrible campaign. His distaste and disgust with having to interact with ordinary Americans at all levels was noticeable on his face every time one of the MSM outlets showed him trying to be just that. I remember one shot of him eating that cheesesteak, and he looked like he would rather be having dental surgery without anesthesia. His forays into the Hispanic community were few and far between, and that registered with those few of us Latino conservatives that are able to maintain a small but consistently growing enclave here in Texas. Kerry never built any connection to Americans at all levels, something which is so critical in the instant media age. His campaign failed because of his extant disdain for Americans who don't have brunch at the Hahvahd Club on Sundays.
Did he pay the state taxes on his damned yacht yet?
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 1:27pm.
Mr. Hardworking & Loyal is a tax scammer.
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, DocSam. So I'll leave you with a few so as not to write a tome on John F'ing Kerry.
Insert Foot In Mouth, Mr. Ready for Duty.
The Troops Don't Like Being Called Stoopid, John
Halperin is Correct About Obama...Bet he'd Call John Kerry a Condom
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde - shame on you, that would be an unfair
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 3:41pm.
Blonde - shame on you. That would be an "unfair attack;" heck, almost like "cutting him to ribbons,"sort of attack on a "decent, serious, honorable Democratic Senator and presidential candidate," who also was a flip-flopper on the war, and tax-evasion expert filthy rich elitist yachtsman.
I'm going to say something about James Traub, that lying hate mongering idiot - give me a minute.
(;~/ gary
Maybe Kerry should
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 11:29am.
apply for another Purple Heart.
Thanks NYT..
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:16pm.
for straightening me out on Kerry...and I always thought he was just an idiot.
Lurch? Honorable? Decent? Not
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:25pm.
Lurch? Honorable? Decent? Not just no, but HELL NO!
Dem's and Repub's...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:27pm.
can't even agree on what "decent, serious, and honorable" mean if Kerry's their definition.
I have 2 words for any
Submitted by Maestroh on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 1:01pm.
I have 2 words for any left-wing nutbag who whines about unfair attacks: Sarah Palin.
Kerry lost because he never once presented a believable plan for Iraq. It was only the most important issue in the election. Given a choice between the known & the no way it will ever happen (Kerry suggesting he could get Germany & France into the war on our side), the voters chose the known.
Narcissist #2
Submitted by B.Soetoro on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 1:38pm.
We all know who #1 is!
Did the media ever ask WHO filmed his Vietnam movies?
Just him and his trusty tripod...
What a goober.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Submitted by mattm on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 2:43pm.
Kerry was destroyed by the truth. One of those truths was that his campaign was deliberately lying, witht he help of the Lie-bral Media (namely Dan Rather).
If you want to see an "attack machine" look at what they're doing to Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and any other prominent republican.
It's part of their m.o. Attack the person on personal grounds, ethical grounds, and legal grounds whether there is legitimate cause or not.
They also studiously avoid actually talking about the issues, except to misrepresent and mischaracterize the GOP position.
And to top it off, if all else fails, accuse the GOP of doing exactly what the Dems do as a matter of party procedure.
John Kerry..Loyal Obama Prison wife.....
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 2:53pm.
Question... why is he putting out diplomatic fires?... And if he is what is HIllary and her wife huma doing traveling around the world?
Kerry
Submitted by jessieH on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 3:17pm.
John Kerry is a proven thief. He has no morals, just a loud mouth.
James Traub - a dangerous voice for America, and humanity.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 6:07pm.
I could begin here with either he's a lying pig - or that, he's a complete ignorant blind and biased jerk. Can't decide.
Back in Sept, 2006, the Los Angeles Times (at the time, they still had a full section - full page newspaper format) presented on it's Sunday front page Opinion Section, an above the fold featured presentation by James Traub, complete with a very large caricature of then Sec General Kofi Annan globe trotting on an earth, the size of a basketball. While the thrust of Traub's rambling confusion was intended to help secure the legacy of the outgoing Annan, he began by misrepresenting history in a vile and disrespectful manner, while attempting to elevate both Kofi Annan and ex-President Bill Clinton to sainthood level, while ripping the sitting President Bush to shreds.
My focus here is on the period of time, just preceding President Bush's tenure, as that is how Traub raped history.
The piece : The World's Elder Statesman - Kofi Annan has revalidated and sharpened the U.N.'s role, regardless of his reputation to the contrary.
Rather quickly, Traub gets to the garbage that he must hold in his gut (my bold):
"Then..?" Sudan?" No Mr. Traub - the Sudan, once again, was already long falling into this conflict. But let's move on to more significant conflicts, besides the relative minor horrors of the Sudan.
The partisan bias is obvious here, as Traub is always going to present Clinton and Annan in the "for the good of all humanity" column, and Bush, and anyone or anything else conservative, as "a threat to humanity." I'm guessing that when one is that intolerant of others, to the extreme of being a bigot, that they are simply blind to what is staring them in the face.
1997 thru the end of 2000 [the end of Clinton's term] - "world largely at peace?". OK, so we can leave out Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan (the Taliban's horrific conquest, horrific women right's violations, and genocide), and Blood Diamonds. We can also leave out the fact that Bill Clinton had turned his back on the late 90's spiraling out of control HIV/Aids pandemic, in Africa (and other 3rd world countries) -- see "Too little, too late - How many times is Bill Clinton going to apologize to Africa?" by The Nation's David Corn, for a little background there. Bush, as Traub, is probably unaware, proved himself here to be a world leader, here, for the good of all humanity, such as few in our time.
Now. What really marked the late 90's, other than that which I've already noted which Traub missed? What was this "good luck" that Traub was speaking of?
Surely in the back of Traub's mind, was the fact that the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which Clinton and the UN had looked the other way before and during, was prior to the carefully (and carelessly) selected starting date for the 1997-2000 era of "world peace and prosperity," which the left so clings to.
President Clinton had gone to visit Rwanda in 1998. While Clinton had so disappointed all, by not clearly offering up an apology for his inaction (fear of acting), at the time, he did make one bold promise to the long suffering people of the region. "Never again," he proclaimed - he promised.
However, just next door to Rwanda, a tribal conflict - a spill over from the Rwandan genocide - was already well underway in 1997, perhaps even before.
Even here, the 1998 date of Clinton's promise is intriguing. While our national MSM (the international media was paying attention) refused to show any interest in the ever widening conflict in the DR Congo, many many reports, were describing the horror and the scope of the conflict, from 1996, and certainly in 1997. In fact, one Guardian, UK, journalist went back, later on, and filed this report Return to the congo, where he revisits the site of a 1997 genocide, where 120,000 were slaughtered in one day . . the river ran choked with bodies. I can almost hear Bill Clinton speaking, "never again," and then muttering under his breath, "except for the 120,000 who were just slaughtered last year, just next door."
The media has decided that the DR Congo began in 1998 - go figure.
How many were dying in the genocide and civil war in the DR Congo during this period (1997-2000)? Reports vary - and there wasn't much interest amongst the "glob trotting humanists" to discuss it, but generally estimates back then ran in the 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 million. The conflict is also known as the Congo rape wars, as some have estimated that as many as 2 million women, were raped; many were brutally raped and many are children.
But - this was just one conflict in this "third- world" region. There were many others during this period of time, 1997-2000. There was the horrible conflicts in Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast and Llberia and Algiers.
Algiers: 1992-1998 civil war conflict, w/ 1997 being perhaps the bloodiest. Amnesty International reported 70,000, mostly civilians, killed.
Sierra Leone - a bloody civil war from 1991-2002, fired up in 1996, where tens of thousands died, and more than 2 million were displaced (1/3rd of the population). The chopping off of arms became well known, as victims were often given the choice of "short sleeves," or "long sleeves."
Even as we watch one special after another from George Clooney to CNN's Christiane Amanpour series on Genocide, the DR Congo, Sierra Leone,Ivory Coast and Algiers, are not mentioned.
Who in the national media would ever venture to question Bill Clinton on these many horrid conflicts. It's a defining silence played out for him, out of a want for his legacy to appear pure.
While, in all likelihood, we are probably never to see the elitist left run out and put 1 and 2 or 3 [million] together and write about one of the deadliest periods of history, from civil conflicts and genocide, since the end of WWII; here today, we should pause and consider that the very worst of that period - the period in which some of the worst horrors of the decade of the 1990's occurred, was in this 1997-2000 period.
Redefining a period of time when millions died in civil war and in genocide, as a period of "good luck," is something only a sick mind, such as James Traub must have, can pull off.
That period of time, was the era of Clinton and Annan.
My gut tells me that the period from 2001 to 2009 was far less deadly, than the preceding period.
May history be remembered.
(;~/ gary