I've always been a Kerry admirer, ever since his testimony on Vietnam all those years ago. This blog came into being because I wanted to help John Kerry become president.
Many liberals complain about being disappointed in Obama. Well, imagine how I
feel about Kerry's performance as Secretary of State...!
In his remarks on the Ukrainian situation yesterday, Kerry spoke of those photos
-- the ones allegedly showing Russian special forces personnel in Ukraine -- as if they were genuine:
Some of the individual special operations personnel, who were active on Russia’s behalf in Chechnya, Georgia, and Crimea have been photographed in Slovyansk, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Some are even bragging about it by themselves on their Russian social media sites. And we’ve seen weapons and gear on the separatists that matches those worn and used by Russian special forces.
A lot of people on Reddit
and elsewhere have debunked that photographic evidence, and even the NYT (which published the images, giving them huge play on page one) has admitted that they are fakes (on page nine). As for the social media sites -- what
sites? How easy is it for someone to set up a page on those sites? Without much difficulty, you or I can create a web page in which "John Kerry" allegedly says: "Hi! I'm John Kerry and I agree 100% with Cliven Bundy on the negro issue!"
So why the hell is our Secretary of State wedding himself to such demonstrably weak evidence? This is a sad moment, akin to Colin Powell's appearance at the U.N. Powell was one of America's most respected figures -- a man who easily could have been president -- yet he ruined his brilliant reputation by spewing a garbage argument for a garbage war, all based on garbage evidence.
Powell was a man of honor. What happened?
Kerry was a man of honor. What happened?
It may be fair to ask another question: Hillary Clinton was a woman of honor -- what happened? The answer: Barack Obama happened. If you join an administration with reeky policies, that smell will become part of your perfume.
So should we now support the "Elizabeth Warren for President" movement? The argument here
I disagree, however, with the premise that Hillary ran a dumb campaign in 2008. Although mistakes were made (as they say), the real problem was not "dumbness" on the Clinton side but perfidy on the Obama side. At any rate, where's the evidence that Warren knows more about such things?
Clinton will be 69 years old on inauguration day 2017, nearly the oldest president ever. She has had a few health scares. By all accounts, she left her previous four-year stint in government service exhausted. She might not run, and the Democrat in second place in the polls, Vice President Joe Biden -- 74 on inauguration day -- is too old to be president. Beyond them, Democrats have nobody -- except Elizabeth Warren.
Nobody...? In the interest of "outside the box" thinking, let me toss out some oddball possibilities: Russ Feingold (my personal preference). Al Franken. Donna Edwards, of Maryland. Bill Richardson. Dick Durbin. Barbara Boxer. Tom Udall. Mark Begich (if he can hold onto his seat). Paul Tonko (who has sensible ideas about Social Security). Peter DeFazio. If age weren't an issue, Jerry Brown.
But not DiFi. Please.