But why did Kerry spend more than half his allotted time badgering the
prospective ambassador to Belgium about money he gave to a group that was
mean to Kerry? This just seems small and pathetic.

"A Senate hearing that began with glowing tributes to a St. Louis
businessman and his qualifications to become ambassador to Belgium turned
bitterly divisive Tuesday after he was criticized for supporting a
controversial conservative group," the Associated Press reports from
Washington:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., grilled nominee Sam Fox about
why he donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth during the 2004 presidential race [...] "Might I
ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of
American politics as regards the politics of personal
destruction?" Kerry asked near the end of the hearing
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Fox, one of the nation's most generous contributors to
Republican candidates and causes, said he shared Kerry's
concerns that politics "has become mean and destructive."

Fox said he didn't recall who asked him to give to the
group and blamed partisans on both sides for contributing
to so-called 527 groups that are not subject to conventional
campaign finance rules.

"So is that your judgment that you would bring to the
ambassadorship, that two wrongs make a right?" Kerry asked.

This is the second time this week that "the politics of personal
destruction" has come up; the first, was when Sen. Hillary Clinton,
attempted to impose a rule that no one was to discuss the impeachment of
her husband and the illicit sexual acts attendant to it.

Mrs. Clinton's position on this makes a certain amount of practical
sense. She is, after all, running for president, and the impeachment
raised questions about the Clintons' marriage, and about Mrs. Clinton's
character, that every voter ought to find troubling. Best for her if she
can persuade her opponents, the media and everyone else that discussing
her character is simply bad form. (Good luck!)

But why did Kerry spend more than half his allotted time badgering the
prospective ambassador to Belgium about money he gave to a group that was
mean to Kerry? This just seems small and pathetic. It's akin to Mrs.
Clinton's lone "no" votes on the 2001 confirmations of Viet Dinh and
Michael Chertoff to Justice Department posts. Dinh and Chertoff had both
worked on Whitewater investigations.

Kerry no doubt genuinely feels the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth treated
him unfairly. It's even possible that they did; 40 years after the fact,
we certainly can't say for sure that their eyewitness accounts were true
and Kerry's was false.

He also seems to feel that this cost him the
presidency, which he deserved.

But life is unfair, and you don't become president because you "deserve"
to, but because the voters choose you. Maturity consists in significant
part in the ability to accept loss and to rise above it. That Kerry is
still wallowing in self-pity more than two years after the fact tells us
something damning about his character.

--
"You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you
do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do
well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."