I agree that Obama's lack of consistency did make things hard, but I do think Kerry was used as he was because the other choices Obama had were not as capable. I doubt that anyone - even Obama - could have done the 2 speeches making the case as well as Kerry. However, I think Obama should have made the first one. It is the President who has the emotional link with the country and the first speech mainly outlined what had occurred.
watched the SFRC hearings and agreed with the NYT that Dempsey was obvious in not wanting to speak and Hagel seemed uncertain and unprepared when he answered. Of Kerry, they said that some Senators were unhappy with his confident demeanor - which others liked. To me, he was like he always is - he was polite, respectful, patient and he answered all the questions that he could. There were some that he said would be Obama's choice and he had not stated his opinion. ( Nothing like Clinton's obvious anger when she asked what does it matter.) I have not had a chance to watch the House.
I think he did a far better job on the 5 sunday talk shows than McDounough did yesterday - and certainly better than Rice did in 2012. I was unimpressed with Hagel at his confirmation hearings - though I expected to impressed. I don't think Samantha Powers would be in as much control as Kerry was.
I have no idea how to assess how well he did at the EU meeting - but he seemed to get what he needed out of the meetings.
I think because he was so dominant - and the attack was SO unpopular, that Kerry, who never had Obama's popularity, has borne the brunt of most of the attacks that people have made. To me, if you look at all he did, and knowing that Teresa was dealing with serious medical issues, I am surprised that he did as well as he did.
= new reply since forum marked as read