Gail Russell Chaddock

One criticism of John Kerry’s early Senate investigations was that, in his own words, they “looked at strange and nefarious types that people did not take seriously.” On Oct. 24, 1991, that rap ended. On the other side of the witness table in the vast Hart Senate hearing room was seated Washington powerbroker Clark Clifford — a man who’d played poker with Winston Churchill and advised every Democratic president since Harry Truman. He was an icon in official Washington, especially for Democrats with an eye on the Oval Office But Clifford was also implicated in a $20 billion-plus criminal banking enterprise across 73 countries — unwittingly, he said.

It was a defining moment for Kerry, whose investigations, more than his legislative record, have been highlights of his 19-year Senate career. He told staff to “get the truth out” and follow evidence where it led — even to the heights of his party. As a fourth term US Senator, Kerry’s legislative record is modest; Few bills bear his name. His 6,310 Senate votes, mainly liberal, have enough twists and turns to invite charges of inconsistency. But his signature investigations were models of dogged, even relentless focus, and may tell more about his persona and likely attributes as a president than anything else he has done in his 19 years in the Senate.

His probes included tracking illegal gunrunners to the Reagan White House (1985-86), drug traffickers to Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega (1988), and Noriega’s dirty money to BCCI and some of the top powerbrokers in Washington (1987-92).

To supporters, this capacity to ask penetrating questions is one that helps a leader craft policy in often-complex situations. But critics say Kerry’s focus on investigation has smacked of grandstanding, prompting the moniker “live shot Kerry” early in the senator’s career. Others note that obsession with detail sometimes reflects a reluctance to set bigger-picture objectives or, when needed, to move on. A former county prosecutor, Kerry thrives on the minutiae of a long, complex investigation.

Unlike many senatorial colleagues, he reads through evidence himself. He’s an aggressive questioner, constantly bringing hearings back to basics: what witnesses knew and when they knew it. But he’s also shown he can build consensus, as he did with a charged MIA/POW investigation that opened the door for the US to restore relations with Vietnam.

If he makes it to the White House, Kerry will be only the third US senator in history — after Warren Harding and John Kennedy — to go straight from Capitol Hill to the presidency. And neither got there by writing great laws. It’s an irony of politics that a strong legislative résumé may be more likely to sink a presidential bid than to make one. Thousands of votes make too big a target, experts say. And the grind of making laws rarely helps a newcomer make a name.

Elected to the US Senate in 1984, he gave up a prized offer to be on the Senate Appropriations committee and joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee instead. It was a sign of longstanding interest in world affairs, fed by his father’s career involvement

in the foreign service. Kerry’s internationalist views echo today in his calls for repairing relations with long-time allies in Europe. — The Christian Science Monitor