Kerry will do a google hangout with the NYT Kristoff on Tuesday

[Mass]

6. Also, the Russian FM and Kerry had been insisting the day before that the solution could only be

diplomatic, and they had meet just a few days before this. I also doubt that Kerry made a mistake on that. He makes mistakes, but this is not the mistake that he makes.

However, it is also clear that he has not always been on message concerning Syria, as somebody who could not spin a message he did not believe in (why he did not believe in is another story). But one of the main problem following the Syria story on the US media is the problem with editor and titles. The same comment was spin as hawkish or dovish depending on the paper and the title.

Clinton's message was a case in point. Many said she endorsed the idea. Frankly, anybody who heard the totality of what she said should be surprised how hawkish she seemed. The idea to hold Russia accountable was surprising. She may, however, think she has the nomination and play for the general.

I also think the polls on an intervention are soft. Greg Sargent had a post today about a poll on Syria. Most people believed that Syria had used gas. An even greater majority wanted not to intervene. However, when asked whether they would vote for a congressperson who voted against their wishes, more than 70% said they would not change anything. My feeling is that people do not understand what the administration is trying to do (I certainly do not) and therefore are skeptical more than anything else.

Just seen that Obama says there were discussion between him and Poutine about these plans when in Russia (Tweet by Matt Viser).