HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Susan Rice Should Not Hav...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:45 AM

Susan Rice Should Not Have Caved in to Senatorial Opposition


by Sophia A. Nelson, Esq. Dec 23, 2012 4:45 AM EST

Like so many qualified women of color, the president’s highly qualified nominee for secretary of state suffered a withering assault from the Senate’s old guard. Sophia A. Nelson on why Rice should have not have withdrawn her name from consideration.


On a Thursday evening, embattled U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice tweeted this:

“Those of you who know me know that I'm a fighter, but not at the cost of what's right for our country.”

Immediately, thousands of retweets and responses came pouring in to her feed expressing both sadness and support for her decision to remove her name from consideration for the coveted position of secretary of state position. But I was disappointed, as were millions of professional black women in America. We were not disappointed in Susan Rice the woman, who we love and admire; but in a national culture and political process that would so angrily and so readily define, decimate, and dismantle the qualifications and quality of a woman like Susan Rice to be nominated for secretary of state.

There can be no doubt that we as women of the 21st century have come a long way. But there can also be no doubt that there are still far too few extremely well qualified women of color in high-ranking political offices and appointed positions both in government and in corporate America. Look at the United States Senate for example: there will be 20 women serving in the Senate in 2013, none of them African-American, Native American, or Latino. There is one Asian-American woman, Mazie Horino, who is the new senator-elect from Hawaii. The numbers are even more dismal for women of color in corporate boardrooms, university board regents, and throughout industry.

Here is my point: Rice is more than qualified to be secretary of state, and no rational person can argue otherwise. She should have been afforded a hearing before the Senate if the president nominated her, and she should have been judged solely on her stellar qualifications and responses to the senators’ questions. The fact that she understood—as do far too many women and women of color—that we are doomed once the stereotype “code words” start flying, is tragic. It’s the oldest “old boy” trick in the game. The “boys,” e.g., Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, came at her with code speak: “unqualified,” “incompetent,” “misleading,” and “not prepared.” And sadly they enlisted the help of other female senators such as Susan Collins and Kelly Ayotte. The deployment of other women to undercut a powerful woman is something we as women have all experienced, and we grimace each time it occurs. The clear winner here is one of the Senate’s own: John F. Kerry. McCain and the boys will likely support him quickly and painlessly as a matter of senatorial esprit de corps!

-snip-

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/23/susan-rice-should-not-have-caved-in-to-senatorial-opposition.html

42 replies, 2406 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Susan Rice Should Not Have Caved in to Senatorial Opposition (Original post)
DonViejo Dec 2012 OP
samsingh Dec 2012 #1
karynnj Dec 2012 #7
Turbineguy Dec 2012 #2
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #3
wisteria Dec 2012 #4
appacom Dec 2012 #29
PoliticalBiker Dec 2012 #30
emulatorloo Dec 2012 #5
politicasista Dec 2012 #41
karynnj Dec 2012 #6
DonViejo Dec 2012 #10
wisteria Dec 2012 #16
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #8
dawg Dec 2012 #9
John2 Dec 2012 #11
dawg Dec 2012 #12
phleshdef Dec 2012 #14
wisteria Dec 2012 #20
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #15
karynnj Dec 2012 #18
wisteria Dec 2012 #21
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #24
karynnj Dec 2012 #28
davidpdx Dec 2012 #34
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #35
karynnj Dec 2012 #37
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #38
davidpdx Dec 2012 #39
libdem4life Dec 2012 #13
HipChick Dec 2012 #17
karynnj Dec 2012 #19
wisteria Dec 2012 #22
politicaljunkie41910 Dec 2012 #25
karynnj Dec 2012 #27
davidpdx Dec 2012 #33
Beacool Dec 2012 #36
Mad_Jack_P Dec 2012 #23
Hekate Dec 2012 #26
politicasista Dec 2012 #42
Evergreen Emerald Dec 2012 #31
BigDemVoter Dec 2012 #32
politicasista Dec 2012 #40

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:48 AM

1. agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:49 PM

7. How can you agree to something fundamentally wrong?

Susan Rice was never nominated and thus didn't have a hearing. Had Obama wanted to, he would have nominated her and she would have had a hearing. A hearing that Kerry would have chaired as graciously as he did for HRC. Durbin, the Democratic whip said they had the votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:55 AM

2. It's a problem

that the republicans own. This will come back to bite them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:57 AM

3. She didn't "cave"--I'm pretty sure Obama expected her to take herself

out of the running. I don't blame her at all. I feel bad for her--now she's forever tied to something that wasn't at all her fault (Benghazi).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:29 PM

4. She wasn't as qualified as Senator Kerry, and...

the White House was already leaning towards Kerry when she decided to withdraw.
And, Senator Kerry deserved to be the clear winner, as if this were a contest. The best person for the post received the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:44 AM

29. I agree that sen. kerry is the wiser choice, but she was qualifed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:05 AM

30. That is only speculation

We don't know that Susan Rice wasn't first on his list. The White house was mum on that.
Susan Rice was as qualified as Kerry. Their experiences are different, but going from UN Ambassador to SoS would be considered a natural progression. One could say she was as qualified as Kerry and perhaps even more so given her position allowed her many, many international contacts and relationships with regard to a multitude of international problems... and in the position of SoS, international contacts and good relationships with them are a must.
I would have preferred she not have withdrawn, hence Kerry could have stayed in the senate and hence, save a potential lost seat there to the MA ignoramus, Brown.

Politically, it was a bad move for two reasons.
1) It appeared she *caved* under pressure from the MINORITY party, and President Obama accepted it.
2) It risks a much-needed majority party seat in the senate with the nomination of Kerry for the position Rice should have been nominated for. President Obama went along with the republicons recommendations. A disasterous move if you ask me.

It appears Kerry is an easy confirmation, but I hesitate to believe that given the pattern of behavior of the republicons. They pushed for a Kerry nomination while reviling Rice. President Obama went right along with thier game... very dangerous from even the most superflourous of situational overviews. I wonder how many of those that wanted Kerry will ACTUALLY vote for him at his confirmation. I think it's more of the Health Care debate tactics all over again... feign support then vote against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:32 PM

5. Water under the bridge. And IMHO there is nobody better for the job than John Kerry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #5)


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:43 PM

6. The article starts with an inaccurate piece of information

"president’s highly qualified nominee for secretary of state" Rice was NEVER nominated. It is entirely possible that she never would have been and that the day she announced she was withdrawing her name she already knew that Obama intended to go with Kerry. The President always said that he had not made a decision.

Now, I DO think that she would have won nomination - Dick Durbin said they had the votes and he is excellent at doing his job as whip - which includes counting the votes.

I think it is ridiculous that this writer starts the article speaking of Rice as the nominee .. and pulling her name. In fact, there was a LOT of lobbying from the inside the beltway pundits and advocates of Rice AND you may have noticed the Senate DEMOCRATS were silent - except when directly asked about Kerry or Rice. They tended to respond that Rice was highly qualified, but I saw none who showed any great support. When speaking about Kerry, they spoke in superlatives. A very few articles on Kerry spoke of how he disliked this lobbying - and did not engage in it. That makes sense to me as an outsider with no connections - the President knew Kerry and what he could bring to the job and knew he wanted it - what else could add to that.

As to the Republicans, McCain had deep seated problems with Rice that went back to HOW she attacked him in 2008. You might remember that one of the best 2008 convention speeches was Kerry's - which took on McCain on foreign policy and other issues. Kerry's attacks were actually more successful than Rice's, but not personal.

In addition, watching many SRFC hearings, the Republicans were often upset that they could not get as many administration people to testify as they wanted. This was often mentioned by Lugar in his statement - where he sometimes mentioned that Kerry had also worked to get them. Could it be the abrasiveness of Rice, unlike the nicer demeanor of Clinton, coupled with her past attacks and the real difficulty that the Congress was having always getting the administration at their hearings that made them prefer the long time Senator. Both McCain and Graham spoke of POLITICAL differences with Kerry, but respect for him as a person. In both those cases, back stories speak to how it was Kerry who reached out to them to get things done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:37 PM

10. Very good analysis, karyn...

thanks for sharing it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:05 PM

16. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:15 PM

8. Easy to say when it's not their name and life that will be dragged through the mud

for months, televised all over the world, by a bunch of nut jobs whose goal it is to destroy you.

So I'm not going to call her weak or say she "caved". It's not as though she had already accepted the nomination and then backed out in the middle of it. She never went beyond considering it. She weighed the pros and cons, and made a decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:17 PM

9. I'm still laughing at the people who think it was Ms. Rice that caved.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:57 PM

11. Who

 

do you think caved if it was anybody? I don't think anybody caved. These people are all smart and politicians. I think Obama chose who he wanted. President Obama was given the benefit of the Doubt by the voters in his first term, but he want be able to wiggle out of breaking promises this time. Either he believes Social Security is part of the deficit or he doesn't.

One thing that I notice, the President doesn't directly address in this country and that is the problem of fighting Poverty. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were Liberal ideas that were created to fight against Poverty. They are a Safety net. Either Obama believes in those causes or he doesn't. I find myself disagreeing with him on some profound principles. I don't believe in using a war machine for Nation building and forcing the ideas of Democracy on people. I do believe in fighting against poverty and the human Rights abuses of Parties like the Republican Party. So if he wants to align himself with the Republican Party, he should have ran as one. He shouldn't have ran on liberal Democratic ideas. That is stealing my vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:33 PM

12. I think President Obama decided ...

that his original pick for the job would not be worth the political heat he would take from nominating her. So he accepted her gracious offer to be removed from consideration.

All the other things you're talking about are issues for another thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:42 PM

14. Its way more likely that it was always Kerry.

Because Kerry was the superior choice for the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:29 PM

20. I absolutely agree. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:03 PM

15. I agree. If she was just a "decoy" being floated, she wouldn't

have publicly withdrawn herself from consideration. Anyone who says she was never being considered to begin with is kidding themselves. The balloon went up, was shredded, was allowed to sink out of sight. Politics is a tough game, and she lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:30 PM

18. I assume that she was considered -- as was Senator Kerry

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I also assume that Obama knew (and likely asked) both if they would like to be considered. What is more unusual is that it appears there were just two.

The media, led by the WP, made CW that the preference was for Rice. This never came from Obama. I also saw nothing in Kerry's actions that could be read either way. I think the ONLY thing that I saw in Rice's actions that suggested she saw herself as the likely nominee was that she went to meet with the Senators. An alternative way of looking at that is that it was a high stakes gamble that she could meet with them and have them come away satisfied -- with Rice then having diffused the Republican claim that the WH covered up what really happened until after the election. That would have been a major coup - going far beyond whether they supported her. I suspect that if she thought a nomination was sure and imminent, she would have waited until then and made the case when she had the backing any nominee has. Only if she thought the nomination were iffy and Kerry being as likely or more likely, would I see someone who has ALWAYS been described as a highly ambitious woman, who knew how to work her way up the career step ladder make a VERY public, very high risk move.

Ask yourself if a potential nominee has ever - before being nominated - gone to her 3 or so worst Senate critics to meet with them. Note that she did NOT visit any Democrats - likely seeing that the Obama nomination secures them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:31 PM

21. I think your analysis is a good one. She took a risk and she lost. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:37 PM

24. I don't think we'll ever know what was going on behind the scenes--

Rice is loyal to Obama and likely will never complain publicly about the process. But she did get the shaft--sent out to explain Benghazi even though she had no role in the matter and was armed with unverified talking points from another agency, and now is tainted by association to the whole fiasco more so even than HILLARY CLINTON, who is walking away relatively unscathed, thus preserving her future candidacy. Rice does not get to explain or defend herself in the nomination hearings, either. It's possible that the Obama administration found that the easiest way to shut McCainGhazi and Goober Graham up was to simply drop Rice, rather than put her forward in hearings and make the Libya thing a bigger deal than it was. He had an easier and arguably better batter on deck (Kerry), why not go with him instead? I don't really agree with the way this was handled, although I've been a diehard Obama supporter from the git-go. This wasn't one of his better moments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:44 AM

28. Agree completely that we will likely never know what really

happened. I assume that there will be some accounts - including in Obama's autobiography. But ALL of them could be spin by the person whose book it is.

I agree completely that Obama's team completely misplayed this. They really should have prevented leaks until an announcement was made.

Your point on Rice being the one thrown out to speak, I don't know if we know the whole story there. I think the campaign controlled the main Sunday morning speakers. Rice was EVERYWHERE so I assume that this was at someone in the campaign or the administration's request. Maybe to get her more visibility. If so, it backfired and in retrospect, it is predictable that it could. (I do think a good politician would have responded emphasizing that not everything was known yet. (As HRC did in her statements. Although she was not on the talk shows, she was among the first to respond.) Seeing that a hostile media has referred to everything Kerry did as a "test", you could think of those appearances as a "test" for Rice.

It is not that she did anything wrong. She repeated CIA talking points when she personally had to think that things were still murky and complicated. Note that no one jumped on HRC's comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:59 AM

34. If that is the case, maybe the same thing is true with Hagel

Could Obama go with Lugar instead? Maybe Hagel is playing along because he was asked to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:16 AM

35. I doubt he'd go with Lugar, because I think Lugar is

over 80. I think he'd just go with the next person on the list--Fluornoy or whoever. But you really have to wonder why Obama would go out of his way to declare a first choice, watch the knives come out, and then just go with someone else altogether without comment or fight. If it's part of the preliminary "floating the name" process, they were already past that. At some point, he should stand by a potential nominee. I recall several "embattled" nominees in Repub cabinets. I think he fought for Geithner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:26 PM

37. I think there is a major difference once someone is named

The problem here is that the media reported leaks. They sourced the leaks vaguely. This led to them being semi official - the worst possible positions. A target because the leak gave their nomination some credibility and not an official nominee - so without the backing that represents.

I think the villian here is the media as much as the Obama team. (leaks put Obama in a weird position - the more he defends, the more people demand he just appoint the person. However, the lack of an announcement could mean that he is still making his decision.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:20 PM

38. Then the Obama team needs to get control of its own process

for choosing its cabinet--no leaks, no trial balloons, just state your nominee and let them go through the process. Rice and Hagel are both very well-known, have clear public service records behind them. They should have been sufficiently vetted by the administration before consideration for these posts, especially since both are already SERVING in the administration in different capacities. It seems as if Obama prefers some sort of public vetting, and is willing to abide with whatever his nominees' enemies come up with, without argument. The issue is not that opponents will lob rocks and arrows at his choices. Obama should expect that. The issue is that ANY rocks and arrows seem unacceptable to him. Obama doesn't seem to realize that an ultimately losing nomination fight doesn't tarnish him or cause a terrible "distraction", it merely makes him look like someone willing to stand up for his nominees. The only way I could understand his reluctance to stand by his initial choices is if there's more dirt on them than the public knows yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:10 PM

39. Well put

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:34 PM

13. I hate what was done to her...bullying...but she shouldn't be thought of as "caving" just because

she was a woman of color, even if that were the dispicable reason for the pig's oinking in Congress. She may still have kids at home...she does have two, don't know how old, so she is a Mom. If so, like it or not, that's a valid reason in and of itself.

There will be many opportunities for her as she is qualified for many things and surely everyone in the world knows who she it. I believe she made up her own mind for her own reasons and that is that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:17 PM

17. Disagree...Unless you have walked in a black woman's

shoes...sometimes it is harder to stay and fight...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HipChick (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:19 PM

19. The fact is this was between two people who were golden from the time they left college

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Senator Kerry, who I like and respect, was born into circles that gave him access to power that few get. He, however did not take the easy route to power. His connections would have, more easily than Cheney's, have allowed him to avoid the war and to get on with his other priorities.

Or, had he followed his patriotism - as he did - and became a hero, for all the right reasons, he could have used that, his eloquence, and his family and Yale connections to become a political giant in either party. He chose to speak out against a senseless war that was continuing so politicians could save face. This is not what you do if your main goal is to become President.

Then, after losing 10 years out of politics after losing in 1972 due to being attacked for the protests, he became lt Governor - winning over the party and media favorite. He won by winning over more voters face to face. The same thing happened when he first ran for Senate. Then, in the first year, vets came to him about the shipments of guns and drugs that were part of a CIA scheme, which was against the laws Congress passed, to arm the RW Contras. It would have been easy to ignore this and turn the other way arguing that this would not make you popular in Congress. Instead he fought hard and long to investigate this even when the right threatened his reputation and life.

Kerry has spent most of three decades working on foreign policy. He is described by everyone as diplomatic - even when in 2004 that was not considered a positive by some. In addition, in spite of their attacks in 2004, there are many Republicans who greatly respect him - even as they disagree.

Rice was born to a family where the father was a high level government official. She was a high achieving woman, who was valedictorian of her high school and an impressive all around person. She went to top schools for her BA and PHD - She was a Rhodes Scholar.

Yes, I know that she is a black woman. however, she was NEVER disadvantaged by either being black or a woman. Where Hillary graduated college in 1969, right when women began to succeed in getting the entry level jobs that lead to success, this was really no longer much of an issue when Rice received her PHD. It is true that we have yet to have a woman President, but that last barrier is likely to be broken soon. (In 2008, either Obama or HRC was going to win. HRC probably got more votes for being a woman than votes she lost because she was a woman. )

Rice's career is as fast track as you can get. I think she would be among the youngest SOS we have had in a long time. In general, this progression was because she did what those higher up wanted. I don't know her entire career, but what has been written is that of an ambitious, brilliant person who worked to make her mentors happy with her - and succeeded.

I would argue that if you consider the things a SOS must do and look at who has proven the ability to do so, it is hard to argue that she is the superior candidate. Here is my list - feel free to argue these points or add others.

- Be the country's top diplomat - Kerry has succeeded with the difficult leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Rice, so annoyed the Russians they publicly spoke against her. Advantage Kerry

- Run the State Department - Here, Kerry's staff on the SFRC and his MA office spoke very highly about his leadership. Not to mention, he ran a primary campaign that got him the nomination though as usual he was not the media or party favorite. I don't know much about the size of the UN delegation or how Rice was regarded. (Given lack of information, I call this a wash to a Kerry advantage.

- Dealings with Congress - Kerry advantage (no need to add more)

- Ability to eloquently speak for the President - two of the strongest speeches at the 2008 and 2012 conventions were Kerry's. Very different, but both outstanding. Not to mention, this is the man who electrified the country in 1971 with just his words ... words that can still be quoted.

- Foreign policy visions and insight - In 2006, Madeline Albright wrote a book on the changing US foreign policy. Speaking of the move to try to understand other countries, she opted to quote a Kerry speech. Not from 2006 or from 2004 when he ran, but the speech he gave when he left college in 1966. The interesting thing was that then recent Kerry speeches had matured echoes of that speech. It also reminded me of the end of his 1971 testimony where he hoped that Vietnam would be seen in the future as the point where US policy turned.

Kerry is a man of conscience and insight, whose ambitious goals for US policy have been things he has fought for for 4 decades. The BG had an interesting article of what Kerry did this Friday. He knew the appointment was imminent, but he did not in the morning know that it would happen that day. After speaking to his daughter Vanessa, who was in Boston and watching his little grandson on the phone, he went with an aide to Arlington Cemetery to the grave of his high school friend, Pershing (Grandson of the famous general), who died in Vietnam. To me, this suggests a man who wants this demanding position for the good he can do it in it. He has nothing to prove and the easier course would have been to continue as the excellent Chair of the SFRC that he is.

With all Rice's academic achievement, I seriously think that Kerry is by far stronger here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:33 PM

22. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:45 PM

25. While I like John Kerry, and I agree that he was qualified for the SoS position,

I don't think that Susan Rice was any less qualified than Kerry would have been. I also think that at age 69 he is starting to show his age. I also think that his 28 years as a Senator is what's wrong with today's politics. The Senate is too much of a good old boys frat club. Senators like Kerry, McCain, Bird and Inoye can sit there until they die if the want to, but I don't think that necessarily makes them more effective simply because they've been there a long time. Quite the contrary, many who came there not wealthy, most certainly leave there wealthy.

Hillary Clinton has been a great SoS, but she's 65 now and look how old and tired she looks here lately and I say that not as a put down to Hillary herself has said that she is tired. Kerry is older than Hillary, (69 years old) and he's starting to look tired. The job of SoS can be very demanding, requiring a lot of travel as we just witnessed with Hillary during the Egypt, Israel, Palestinian crisis that had her running between 4 nations in less than 48 hours just a few weeks ago. Kerry's current job in the Senate, back slapping with McCain while they Chair Senate hearings isn't as physically demanding as what Clinton has done in the past few years. Kerry has had a long and distinguished career. Just because he wants the job of SoS, doesn't mean that he's entitled to everything he wants. These Senators come to the House or the Senate and stay a lifetime.

Susan Rice worked her way up into the diplomatic corp on her own merits choosing not to rely on her parent's connections from what I've come to understand. John McCain has never forgiven her for comments made during the 2008 campaign when she was than candidate Obama's foreign policy adviser. We don't know that she'll get another opportunity to be SoS under some other administration. Sometimes you only get one bit at the apple. For those Senators who chose to oppose her nomination, the goal post just kept moving for Susan Rice (as it does often times for many qualified blacks). She also didn't deserve the nasty anonymous smear campaign that was leveled against her.

Even this board has some nasty attacks against her because she happens to own some stock in that Canadian oil company. Well her husband happens to be Canadian. Perhaps its his stock. The reason that people knew about it was because she put the information on her Federal Executive Disclosure Statement, which requires you to disclose potential conflicts of interest of yours or your spouse. So if she disclosed it, there is no conflict of interest. If she discloses it and people here don't like it because they don't like dirty oil, that's their problem, not Susan's. And Congressmen and women are the last people who should be trying to smear her because she owns stock, since Congressional men and women have been using insider information they've gained through their congressional committee assignment to buy up stock using insider information and up until a year or two ago, this was not even illegal for them to do so, even though it would have been form anyone else to trade on insider information.

So while I wish that she had of hung in their, I'm not surprised that she did what she did. After all, she is a team player. I just wish the team captain would have not allowed her to be thrown to the wolves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicaljunkie41910 (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:22 AM

27. While Kerry is 69 and does not look young, he had the stamina to

train and ride a 111 PanMass bike ride for charity. This while doing a lot of traveling and his job on the SFRC.

I agree that Rice is qualified and never said otherwise. My point is that basic qualifications aside, Kerry is a more diplomatic person and has far more ability to work with the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicaljunkie41910 (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:58 AM

33. I think the fact that she and her husband had oil holdings would have had to be some how dealt with

But probably it wouldn't have made it impossible for her to be SoS. It seems like no one really knew about this until after the stuff happened with Bengazi I agree she got swiftboated on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:04 PM

36. I think that it was a toss up

Obama owed Kerry for his support in 2008, but Rice is a friend. He chose to avoid controversy and decided on Kerry. It was his call.



As for the first woman president, I'm hoping that it is still Hillary.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:16 PM

23. Kerry

Honestly, I would rather have John Kerry as Sec. of State. He has a hell of a lot more hands on experience with similar jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:18 AM

26. Easy for an armchair pundit to tell an embattled woman to continue to be a target

That victimizes her all over again, by essentially saying she's a quitter and it's her own fault.

It's NOT her fault -- it's the fault of the GOP, who are just too clever by half. They got away with it, but it is not the fault of Susan Rice.

As for Senator Kerry, he's qualified without a doubt. But he also no doubt remembers how he was swiftboated by the same GOP, and how they turned his war record on its head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #26)


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:06 AM

31. The other day a politico pundant called the Rice issue...

A political win for republicans.

I believe we should have fought for her. The issue was a real world example of the racism, sexism, lies and distortions promulgated by the republicans and highlighted during the elections.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:19 AM

32. I agree simply because of pressure from the GOP. . .

Although I much, much prefer Kerry as Secretary of State. I would have appreciated a big, "Fuck you" to the GOP from Susan Rice just because. . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Reply to this thread