As to the Kerry comment, it is something that carries very little weight. He is someone with a long history of supporting women when most men didn't - from hiring women, getting a grant to open one of the first rape victims' centers as the assistant DA to being one of the Senators who spoke out in Anita Hill's defense to doing a lot of work on the Small Business committee on programs that helped women's businesses and voting against DOMA.
Note that you dismiss all criticism of any HRC comments when she had her book tour by blaming them on "Bernie fans", but do not consider that many on the left also are not Kerry fans. Anyone out on such a tour where the goal is to interest people enough that they buy their books will say something that others will try to make into controversies. This comment is something that - in repetition, works against Trump more than Kerry - as people can and will see that Trump is as uncontrolled as a small boy and unusually thin skinned. The comment is absolutely not against either young boys or teenage girls, but a very negaive assessment of Trump.
As to the Syrian red line, much will be written about Syria in the future by historians. It is a tragedy. The red line was Obama's - not Kerry's - and the decision on what military or diplomatic response to be made was also Obama's. Just as any diplomatic successes of the administartion are Obama's - so are the failures. What is clear is Obama - in Kerry - had a very able diplomat who especially with the Iran deal and the Paris Climate Accord found success where few thought it could be done.
On Syria, it may be the American tendancy to think we can make everything better. The downside of that conviction is that there is an implicit corollary that we are responsible when any bad things happen. Trump twice bombed Syria in response to chemical weapons use causing very little damage or impact on the overall situation and was cheered by a media trained to speak about Obama and the red line. Yet, which do you think had more impact - actually removing 1300 tons of chemical weapons or the attacks where we warned Russia ahead of time (as we had to) which likely meant Syria was passed the same warning?
What is clear is Kerry's work with Lavrov that resulted in removing those chemical weapons, his unlikely success at getting a UN resolution - backed by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, that might at some point still form the basis of apath to reconciliation, and his many very short but hard won ceasefires were among the few small threads of light in a near totally black situation. The perception that Obama ignored his red line made any diplomatic successes after the chemical weapon deal harder.
Looking back, my own perception is that that deal got Obama out of a situation (having to order even the small attack spoken of) that he did not want to be in. After that point, for all practical purposes, there was absolutely no threat that ANY action by Assad would trigger a military response. IMO, the real "red line" deficiency is that after the chemical weapons were out, we did not do the same on use of cluster bombs, barrel bombs etc on civilians. However, that "deficiency" was not unintentional. Any attack led us further into that incredibly complex situation where there were no good guys we could support. Obama spoke in one interiew of needing to have a clear picture of what happens next. The hard thing for him, Susan Rice, Kerry etc is that Syria is an open wound that they would have loved to have healed. It was possible that there was nothing they could have done.
The Iglesias comment spoke to the uniqueness of McCain and was said at the time that he was being buried. It ignores that while McCain was respected and loved by many Democrats, he was trashed - even as he was bravely facing death - by many in his own party. There was also the contrast between Trump and McCain. His actual legacy will be much more complex than the eulogies. Their was genuine integrity, honor and courage when he was a POW. His actual accomplishments as a Senator are nowhere near as clear as those of Ted Kennedy. It was his oversized personality, loved by the media, that colored much of the glowing praise. I suspect that when Jimmy Carter dies, his inate goodness will get the praise he is due. I also think that, where he willl never be seen as one of the greatest Presidents, his reputation will continue to improve. I think it will be a tossup whether Clinton or Carter will be better regarded 50 years from now when more dispassionate historians look at their presidencies. In some ways,when he dies I suspect the coverage and the praise will mirror the response to McCain.
Obviously, Presidents, no matter how good they are, are in a different category than people who do not become President. However, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Al Gore or John McCain will not necessarily be seen to have a better or larger legacy than Kerry. No major accomplishment is done alone, but it was already said in 2016 that neither the Iran deal, which avoided a war, or the Paris Accord would have happened without his skill, perserverance and commitment. Of these people, only Al Gore has a similar claim to fame. McCain's greatest legacy was all the work he did on making peace with Vietnam, but even here his partner who actually led the effort was John Kerry.
= new reply since forum marked as read
