Statement denying that Kerry is pushing for Secretary of State

[karynnj]

http://www.politickerma.com/jeremyjacobs/1889/kerry-camp-reports-interest-sec-state-job-are-ridiculous

"In spite of mounting speculation suggesting otherwise, John Kerry's spokeswoman said Monday that the senator is not interested in joining President-elect Barack Obama's administration.

Kerry's name has been frequently mentioned as a possibility for secretary of state and some reports have gone so far as to say he is interested in the post.

Brigid O'Rourke, the Boston Democrat's spokeswoman, called those reports "ridiculous."

"This is the political silly season when media speculation is rampant about the new administration," she said. "John Kerry just won an overwhelming victory for his 5th term in the United States Senate and he's not looking for any job other than the one he already has. Any assertion otherwise is simply ridiculous and flat out untrue."

[Luftmensch067]

1. Happy to see this

Interesting to notice the poll on the same page. These people never give it a rest!

[karynnj]

2. Did you notice that even though 45% of the responses were Republican

(at least last night), Beatty had zero. Kerry and Delahunt have likely totally destroyed his ability to ever run for anything - he was absolutely unlikable and his charges were pathetic.

I thought because Kerry and Teresa mentioned transportation that he intended to stay in the Senate.

[beachmom]

4. When did they mention transportation? At the victory speech?

I can't remember.

[karynnj]

6. In Kerry's speech and Teresa's introduction

Nothing detailed - just the word added to the list of things that needed to be fought for. Without the articles you posted, I would not have noticed it - though it would not have been something I would have expected in his list.

[beachmom]

3. Oh, I really hope this means he is staying in the Senate!!!

President Elect Obama needs help in the Senate, and some friendly similar thinking allies. John Kerry will be a VERY powerful Senator and Chairman of the SFRC. And don't forget about that rail bill.

PLEASE, let him be staying in the Senate.

[Luftmensch067]

5. I'm with you guys

And I thought his speech and THK's on Election Night (talking about the wide range of his issues and both emphasizing how proud he is to represent MA) were significant signals, too. Who knows what he will do if asked, but I'm happy about this statement and hope it means he'll be chairing SFRC (now that would be Must See TV, even if we might only be able to view it at the SFRC site!)

[karynnj]

7. I agree

I also wonder if Dodd's not taking SFRC was intentional and done for Kerry. He knows that he will very likely in the next few years sadly get HELP. Someone posted (Beachmom ?) that the rail bill could be landmark legislation for Kerry.

[Muttocracy]

12. I think it's just because Dodd is already head of banking which is also important

Saw a clip of Dodd on C-Span talking about the banking and housing crises and he mentions staying as Banking (and Housing and something else is in the committee title?) and not leading SFRC. Banking is also big for his constituents in CT. And of course the SFRC would be in excellent hands under Kerry.

I think this is the one I watched:

rtsp://video1.c-span.org/archive/c08/c08_110608_dodd.rm in RealPlayer

off http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Congress-Legislative.aspx

[karynnj]

51. Thanks - Banking, especially now is important

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. Am I the only one who thinks NONE of this means anything - the speculation OR the fervent denials?

OF COURSE his staff are going to deny he's interested in the job. He just got re-elected. Not to mention the fact that tacitly admitting you want the job would give the appearance of trying to influence Obama's decision-making process, which is the impression that the third-party gossipers are trying to give. Note that his people are careful to say he's "not looking" for any other job - ie, he isn't "lobbying". NOT that he would refuse such a job if approached by Obama. This is clearly designed to put to rest the rumor that he's "lobbying" Obama for a cabinet position.

Frankly, I think the job will probably be Kerry's to take or leave, and I think it's slightly silly to suggest that he seriously isn't interested in it at all. I trust nothing that is being said right now because it is all in the realm of mindless speculation and politically-driven statements designed not to give any impressions one way or another before Obama makes his decision. I don't think anything being said by third-party rumor mills or Kerry's office reflects the likelihood of his appointment one iota.

[Luftmensch067]

9. I agree that the statement and JK's previous comments on the rumor

are parsed with scrupulous care. I think if he is offered the position, he will consider it equally carefully. But I do think the added statement about the chairmanship of the SFRC is a step further to an indication that he wants to stay in the Senate. It is more information than he's given out 'til now.

All that said, you're absolutely right that anything said by anyone that is not a definite statement from either Obama or JK right now is nothing more than speculation. We just don't know.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. I think he's just confirming what would happen

He is in line to chair the SFRC at the moment. That's fact - I don't see that in particular as an expression of intent. I have tried to stay out of these threads because I think, essentially, they're meaningless - I don't think anything being said by anyone gives any indication about what's going to happen. What is clear is that Kerry and his staff are very judiciously offering what amounts to a "no comment" by refusing to categorically rule out the possibility of serving in the cabinet while at the same time declining to add fuel to the fire by appearing to "lobby" or influence Obama's final decision.

Personally, I want Kerry in the cabinet. I wanted him in the executive branch four years ago, and I still do - it would offer him far more latitude for his considerable expertise than the rigid Senate rules do. But that's just my opinion. I think for my own sanity I am going to avoid these threads until Obama publicly announces his decision.

[Mass]

14. No, you are not. I am feeling exactly the same way.

The way these statements are parsed amuses me a lot, as I doubt they mean anything in one way or the other.

We all know the statements saying Kerry was pushing for state were made by people who dislike Kerry. That it is trying to counter them is no surprise.

[beachmom]

19. Maybe so, but it IS kind of fun. I consider it a test of sorts.

Which sources are right and which will be wrong. Like look at this one:

http://www.businesssheet.com/2008/11/obama-staffing-roundup-secretary-of-state-and-white-house-chef

And this bizarre new gizmo "Twitter" (I can't figure out what the point to it is other than shortening our already short attention span, but some happening blogger/journalists are using it already) is at the center of the fury:

John Kerry has long been rumored to be under consideration for Secretary of State. And yesterday, Washingtonian Editor at Large Garrett Graff tweeted the following, indicating that it's a done deal:

File this under semi-solid: John Kerry will be Secretary of State. The conversation has supposedly already happened: top source.

Cindy Adams also reported yesterday that Kerry will likely get the job. (So it must be true.)

OMG!! OMG!! OMG! Somebody twittered that Kerry will be the next SoS!!!! And the NY Post CONFIRMED!!! So it's a done deal!! Semi, that is.

I admit to getting a kick out of all of this. Thing is we'll know by Thanksgiving. I think it is true that Kerry would only go for SoS, so if it is someone else, then he will stay in the Senate.

[MonteLukast]

22. Twitter :: "Kilroy Was Here"

Fun, but not something I use every day.

[BlueIris]

11. Good. I hope he is not tapped to participate (unless absolutely necessary).

Yes, I realize there is no way to tell from the outside what Kerry's interests are or aren't, or what President-elect Obama wants or doesn't want from him. But I hope he stays in the Senate, as he is simply more valuable there right now, IMO.

[JI7]

15. i wonder if he will be better in the Senate also

he has been there all these years and he finally will have a lot of power to get the things he wants done and a President that will at least listen and sign the bills .

the SOS would be a great position but he would be very limited in what he can do or say as he will be serving Obama. if he stays in the Senate he will still have a very powerful position in the foreign policy area but he will be more free to do and say things he wants.

Kerry is more liberal than Obama and with Obama likely to govern center-left and with moderates like Rahm Emanuel and maybe others in his administration it would be nice for Kerry to be free to disagree with them or try to convince them to change.

[BlueIris]

16. We need all the Dem senators we can keep right now. nt

[JI7]

17. well, even if Kerry were to leave he would be replaced by another Democrat

that's one argument i don't agree with. whoever replaces him will likely be from the House and they would have the experience to do a great job.

if we were to leave i'm not worried about the person who replaces him as much as whether it would limit the things he wants to do as i think he has a lot to offer.

[BlueIris]

18. I should have written good Dem senators,

allied with Obama and his goals, who know how to hit the neo-cons where they live. Of which we have...one, by my count. I just don't think anyone can replace what Kerry does for us in the Senate or what he can do for the STB president from there.

[MonteLukast]

21. The sticky point is Senate seniority

Massachusetts stands to lose big here, if they lost both their Senators within too small a time frame.

But is this mitigated by replacement with a powerful Congressman? For instance, if Barney Frank were tapped?

Another mitigating factor: when Ken Salazar was elected, he very quickly found himself on multiple committees and subcommittees, despite being 100th in seniority; so he became more formidable a freshman Senator than one would expect.
I'd expect Frank, if picked, to be propelled even more quickly into committee positions.

[MonteLukast]

13. This whole SoS business has me so torn.

If not for Ted Kennedy, I'd tell him to GO FOR IT, in all caps and neon.

Maybe the ideal situation would be for him to be SoS in 2012, for Obama's second term?

Any other positions he'd be eligible to work, besides SFRC Chair, that would let him keep his Senate seat? I mean, if Claire McCaskill can be Senator and DNC chair at the same time...

[karynnj]

20. No there is no other big official position he could get and hold his Senate seat

Obama's cabinet is in the executive branch and as Tay has eloquently pointed out there is a conflict of interest being in both.

In addition, he cannot hold both a chair and be the majority leader. His insights and depth of foreign policy knowledge plus his ability to really listen - both to foreign leaders and to others on the committee will make him an outstanding head of the SFRC. It also will help that he has a higher profile going into that job than either Biden or Lugar had. In addition, neither Lugar or Biden were trusted confidants of the Bush administration - and Lugar and Helmes certainly were not in the Clinton years.

In fact, looking at the list of SFRC chairs, I don't think any were as closely aligned with the President at the start of a Presidency as Kerry - at least back to Nixon, though there are many where I don't really know the relationship.

#
# J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.) 1959-1975
# John J. Sparkman (D-Ala.) 1975-1979
# Frank F. Church (D-Idaho) 1979-1981
# Charles H. Percy (R-Ill.) 1981-1985
# Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) 1985-1987
# Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.) 1987-1995
# Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) 1995-2001
# Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) 2001
# Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) 2001
# Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) 2001-2003
# Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) 2003-

Fullbright was an early opponent to the Vietnam War, even in the LBJ years. Church was very liberal compared to Carter. Percy was a moderate/liberal Senator vs Reagan. I don't think Lugar was closely aligned to Reagan. Let's just say that Helmes and Clinton were not friends.

Googling to find more on how they SFRC chairs and Presidents interacted - I found this fascinating oral history of Fullbright'e lead staffer - given in 1983. (To prevent others having the same confusion - the Senator Al Gore mentioned at the end is Gore's father - and was not ambiguous in 1983!) http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Marcy_interview_8.pdf

- who speaks of many things - including what it takes to be a powerful voice. It is interesting that he found Percy too reluctant to disagree with Reagan - and attributed part of Fullbright's power to his split with LBJ. He also has an interesting discussion on the earlier history when the SFRC tended to be a committee with the chairs of other committees there (including a fascinating discussion on the relationship of Finance and SFRC - reading that it was interesting that not only is the current chair of Finance not on SFRC, but Kerry is the only one on both.)

He speaks of the popular Governor of Arkansas winning the primary against Fullbright. It is easy to remember parallels to Weld/Kerry - which had a much better outcome. With the possibility of Kerry heading SFRC, under a President Obama, this seemed to be relevant.

[Mass]

23. As much I do not care whether Kerry has it or not, please not Hillary,

which seems to be the latest rumor.

[MBS]

24. ditto. . .but

it's not going to happen. I'm convinced that this is a deliberate smokescreen, and done in part to reassure
the Clintonites that they are being taken seriously. I think that Obama is putting his training in Chicago politics to good use here.

Even the Talking Heads who were playing/gushing along with this rumor last night seemed to me to betray their doubts.. . while saying she was qualified, then they'd go on almost immediately to note the list of OTHER Mentionables who were as qualified or (Kerry and Richardson) MORE qualified.

I fully admit that this analysis is 90% wishful thinking on my part(oh, PLEASE don't let it happen . )

But, FWIW, it just doesn't feel real to me.

[Mass]

25. In addition, the FT has a blog article asserting that the transition team

thinks Kerry is lightweight and Richardson flaky.

[MBS]

26. FT= Financial Times???? or something else?

Please educate the uninitiated here :)
Anyway, I agree with them about Richardson. . .but Kerry as "lightweight"? :wtf: That's the last word I'd use to describe him.
All in all, I think he's better off in the Senate, assuming that what he wants (which is the main thing), but I want people to appreciate who this man is.

[Mass]

27. Financial Times.

http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/11/hillary-for-secretary-of-state/

All this seems to be the usual DC rumors, or how to fill columns when there is nothing new to be said, anyway.

[MBS]

28. thanks

"how to fill columns where there is nothing new to be said": Oh, EXACTLY!!

[beachmom]

30. It might happen. The story is legit. Obama & Clinton met in Chicago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/clinton-met-with-obama-ab_n_143810.html

A Democratic official confirms to the Huffington Post that Sen. Hillary Clinton met with President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday to discuss her role in the new administration.

Clinton's trip to Chicago, described in press reports as "personal business," came following a request from Obama, the official said.

The New York Senator is reportedly under consideration for Secretary of State, but it is unclear whether she had discussed that position with the transition team before making the trip. "If they told her beforehand, she did not tell her people," the official said.

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines referred questions to the Obama transition team.

Obama people don't make these leaks by accident.

[MBS]

31. I have no doubt that the "leak" has been quite deliberate. .

but what it's really all about. . .I just can't figure. I really, truly cannot imagine her as SoS, for multiple reasons.

[beachmom]

32. MSNBC: Kerry told friends that Hillary will be the next SoS

That is what was said on MSNBC. I rewound the tape and listened.

David Schuster:

"John Kerry has now told some friends he believes Hillary Clinton is now the next for Secretary of State".

[karynnj]

35. I doubt Kerry would leak anything he was told - so I doubt this

There is also the nth hand nature of this. Schuster is not saying Kerry told him and this is not Kerry speaking in public - it is Kerry telling unnamed friends and then they are telling the media.

This is not to discredit the story - it just seems unlikely that the Obama team would want it out this way - and knowing that Kerry would be unlikely to say anything.

[beachmom]

29. There is a Team of Rivals argument for Hillary.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. No?

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/11/17/081117ta_talk_paumgarten

The host predicted that President Obama would have a miserable term and face a challenge from within his own party in 2012, likely from Hillary Clinton. “You watch,” he said. “In a year, the Clintons will orchestrate a campaign to declare this a failed Presidency.”

On the merits, and I am sure you must agree, Mass, that Hillary is well thought of internationally. My relatives in Europe were disappointed she wasn't going to be President. She is also very smart. I am reticent about her world view, however, but I think in the end she is probably a realist.

[Mass]

34. Al Giordano has an interesting take on this.

(he may be wrong of course, but it is interesting to read)

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/

[MBS]

36. Thanks! I love Al Giordano

Thanks to whome for introducing me/us to him! He is an oasis of sanity and good sense in a sea of political silliness

[beachmom]

37. Also a diary with the same post:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/14/101142/61/202/660858#c300

I am not convinced he is right, especially when he dismisses out of hand Obama's secret meeting with Hillary yesterday.

But the discussion is worth having.

[Mass]

38. What I get from the media comments goes in the same sense that

Giordano is going to.

First, the meeting that Obama and Clinton got, not so much secret as unannounced (I hope they can keep a secret better than that), may have been a courtesy meeting in order to give her an idea of who was seriously considered, and what reform he would try to get first, just as he is doing with McCain and Lindsay Graham on Monday.

The comments from some media at least tend to say that the transition team (a lot of Clinton people in there, for some good reasons mostly, that they are experienced) are dismissing Kerry and Richardson as possibilities with negative comments. As I said in the other thread, I do not necessarily trust media reports , but which version should I trust: that Clinton is considered as SoS or that the Clinton people are dissing Kerry and Richardson?

[ProSense]

42. It's bizarre. Look at what the NYT is now reporting

Two of Mrs. Clinton’s friends said they believe she would take the secretary of state job if offered. “I think she’d do it,” said one of them.

But the Clinton friends and other Democrats close to both the Clinton and Obama camps cautioned that Mr. Obama might simply be sounding out Mrs. Clinton about what, if anything, she would be interested in. The options, Democrats say, could include Mrs. Clinton’s staying in the Senate and taking a lead there in helping Mr. Obama enact a program for universal health care, the issue that both senators emphasized — with some differences — in their respective campaigns.

The Obama transition team has clamped down on information and leaks about Mr. Obama’s personnel efforts, with some success. The Clinton rumors flared late on Thursday, first after reports that she had been spotted boarding a flight for Chicago, and then when a small motorcade of black SUVs emerged from the garage of the downtown Chicago building where Mr. Obama has his transition office minutes before Mr. Obama’s own motorcade left it at 6:45 p.m. Central time. Mrs. Clinton, as a former first lady, still has Secret Service protection and travels in a government SUV.

Despite rampant speculation when Mr. Obama clinched the nomination to end their long battle more than five months ago, he never seriously considered Mrs. Clinton as his vice-presidential running mate. That enraged some of her most ardent female supporters, opening a breach that Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, Senator John McCain, sought to exploit in part by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.

link

[beachmom]

43. The WP has gone out on a limb, calling her the "top contender" for SoS:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/14/clinton_top_contender_for_secr.html?hpid=topnews#_login&at=u%3Dbeachmom%26t%3D1226689849%26e%3Dlynnstutz%40aol.com%26h%3DQ76pHIiVUTJ4jDb6rSDmRQ%3D%3D

Clinton Top Contender for Secretary of State

Updated 1:30 p.m.
By Anne E. Kornblut
After an under-wraps meeting with President-elect Barack Obama in Chicago on Thursday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is now considered a top contender for the role of Secretary of State in the Obama administration, several people involved in the process said on Friday.

Clinton, in an appearance televised live on Friday, said she would not speculate about Obama's Cabinet selections. Her aides have referred questions about the process to the Obama transition team, whose officials are not commenting. Advisers warn that only a small handful of officials know for certain where Clinton ranks on Obama's short list, which also includes Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

But one Clinton veteran who is in touch with the transition team called it a "real possibility." Another said she has a "very good chance" of getting the job. Most notably, Obama advisers have done nothing to tamp down speculation about Clinton, as they did when it became clear she would not be Obama's running mate -- even though letting her name hang in the air holds real risks for Obama if he ultimately does not select her, potentially reopening the Democratic primary's wounds.

...

A central question is how Clinton would fare in the vetting process. Another is how well her operation, and her husband's, would blend into an Obama operation that has been famous for its discipline and collegiality. Although Clinton campaigned hard for Obama in the fall, tensions between the two camps remain.

A third political consideration for Obama is how to handle Kerry, who set Obama's political career in motion by having him give the keynote address at the Democratic convention in 2004. Kerry is a senior member of th Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Clinton is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I have to say this is pretty shabby journalism. The headline is pretty certain of itself; the evidence backing it up much less so.

[karynnj]

53. This whole article reads like a maish mash of

speculation - after they said no information exists (I notice that they even have a typo in the last paragraph. Calling Kerry a "senior member" is an understatement as it should be "likely chair of" and they ignore his endorsement. More importantly, "how to handle" Kerry. What do they expect Kerry to do? he really is not the problem an angry HRC would be - he never has been.

[Muttocracy]

75. talking to her about other cabinet posts makes more sense to me than Sec of State

I haven't been following all this, but I missed the connection between them meeting and that meaning she's in the running for Sec. of State - I assume Obama is filling all the cabinet posts right now? :shrug:

[karynnj]

95. It's all because there are many people out there creating rumors

Secretary of State is considered the top cabinet position - so I think that is why there are these rumors. I can think of no past case where a high powered former Presidential nominee was chosen for SoS. I think the closest was that Biden was one of the rumors had Kerry been elected.

I really thing - that like in all the past cases - the SoS will be a diplomat or foreign policy specialist. (Of the list, only Kerry comes close to that - and he (as did Biden) has a broader area of expertize.

Given the No Drama nature of the Obama campaign - I doubt they want the Drama Clinton brings - and I can't imagine the Biden/Clinton interface at all. They have always got along, but at least in some back stories that came out in the primaries (not involving Biden), Clinton was always treated as the potential President. I can't see her deferring to Biden and Obama when there is a difference of opinion.

[Muttocracy]

96. I seem to recall vague info from back when Biden was staying neutral

that if Clinton got the nom, would Biden consider VP or Sec. of State? And the thought was no, because of Bill being such a dominant force.

I'd be pretty astounded if Biden was OK with someone who voted for Kyl-Lieberman being Sec. of State.

[Mass]

101. Same here. One Clinton as SoS would bring the other one.

Also, Bill apparently refused to be vetted for Hill to become VP. I cannot see why he would accept for a lesser position as SoS?

[karynnj]

39. This is intersting - and the move to put HRC there trickier than I thought

A side thought given the knifes there for Kerry is that more than ever, I see that the "party in exile" really likely never was there for him. I know that Obama needs to heal the rift - but really hope that he really is strong enough to define his own direction. We really do need a change. I trust Kerry and Kennedy in the change they saw possible with Obama. Real change was offered in 2004.

[politicasista]

44. delete

Understood below. :patriot:

[karynnj]

45. Sorry - I said that poorly

I was not imply that 2008 was NOT real change - but that real change was offered in 2004. The difference was that people were not yet ready to go with change in 2004.

What I was speaking of was JUST foreign policy. Kerry has spoken of the need to change foreign policy since the Vietnam War. Most of why I have thought Obama shared Kerry's view of the change needed comes from Kerry comments and hearing echoes of Kerry's foreign policy views in Obama's speeches. I do hope that Obama wants to reject the mindset that led us to back the Contras in Latin America and to arm OBL. Now, many - maybe me - if asked back in 1980 if it was good to give money and weapons to the Mujjahadim would have said it was a cheap way to defeat the USSR with no American lives lost. Or, in the case of the Contras - that they were fighting people who were near communuists or communist. I was sure Kerry would - and I am still in the place of being seni sure Obama will.

(I also was already for Obama, having rejected Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson - and been disappointed with Dodd.)

[politicasista]

46. That's ok. I will edit the post

I didn't know that it was just foreign policy. I thought it was the entire package. Thanks for the correction.

[karynnj]

49. You don't have to - I just wanted to make sure

that you and others would not think I was unhappy with Obama or that I was saying he wasn't change.

This is also not a new thought for me - the SoS question just made it something I wrote rather than just thought I realize that I am in a rare minority (that mostly exists here) that really thought that Kerry would be able to make incredible changes that most politicians would not think to do and many others wouldn't have the guts to do and that I really wasn't 100% sure Obama has the same goals.

[politicasista]

50. That's fine. I didn't want it to come across as if

I was dissing Kerry to praise Obama. I sort of agree with the SOS thing, but I think it would allow him to stretch out more rather than follow the rigid rules of the Senate.

[sandnsea]

41. I would say, duh, with one caveat

She wants the job. Fucking Clintons.

I hope it is all out of my system now.

[Democrafty]

54. Or, she wants to get picked.

It may have nothing to do with the job - the Clintons want to be wanted. All the time. For everything.

[Firespirit]

66. I do hope he's right

The big issue here is that people who are, in the press, called Obama advisers, may easily be Clinton associates who happen to work for Obama. Their loyalty would be for her and so would their agenda be. This meeting might have been about another post, or even about an unofficial post like healthcare czar, but they would want to stir up crap against Richardson and Kerry and would float that the meeting had been about SecState.

The one aspect of this that makes NO SENSE is that Clinton is patently unqualified for the post. There are other posts that she would be far more qualified for, and there are other people, even excluding the "Titans" of Richardson/Kerry/Lugar/Holbrooke, among Obama's own staff, who are more qualified for the position of chief diplomat. Why in the hell he would pass all of them up, and go for someone whose strengths are in other areas, is one thing I absolutely cannot comprehend. It's not just ungrateful; it's nonsensical and stupid. And he'd be a fool if he didn't think that she would try to steal the spotlight from him at every chance and "go rogue" in such a powerful post. It's totally out of character with what I thought I knew about Obama. Please, let it not be true. I don't want to think so poorly of him.

[Firespirit]

67. I should add, these rumors hurt the final pick if it is not Hillary

If the Clintons push the rumor enough that "Hillary is who he wanted," then if Obama does choose someone else, that person would immediately be tainted as Obama's reluctant second choice. Whether or not that were actually the case. That person would be seen as the one he resorted to after Hillary refused it. I haven't seen anything other than the word of those anonymous two advisers being cited. This HuffPost article quotes an admitted Clintonite who is propagandizing for her. We have no idea who those advisers are, or whether they are lying about the substance of the meeting. At this point not everyone on Obama's team started out with Obama. The rumor that Obama staff think Kerry is lightweight also makes no sense; I mean for crying out loud, many of his staff came from Kerry's organization, including some high level ones. But Clintonites would definitely say that about him, as well as that Richardson is a flake.

If it is Kerry, and he does accept it, then the rumor of a Clinton refusal would be even more damaging to him than to others in the list. "Well she stayed in the Senate to work on issues for New York, but look at what he did, and right after he was just re-elected!"

This kind of nasty vindictive stunt, done not to advance Hillary but to tear down Kerry (or Richardson), just screams Clinton. And for now I am going to assume that it is what's going on. Every consideration of logic, honor, qualification, and as Giordano says, conflict of interest, says that this would be a fundamentally idiotic pick, and Barack Obama has given no reason to believe that he is a fool. But the Clintonites have given every reason to believe that they would do something like this.

[karynnj]

71. If all that is true and Kerry ends up Secretary of State

I doubt there is any long term damage to Kerry. I doubt Obama would offer Kerry the job unless it could be structured to give Kerry assignments important enough to make up for the loss of him in the Senate. That is not an insubstantial loss. Watching the Senate over the last 4 years, Kerry, out of favor with the leadership in his own party with a Republican President, really had some major accomplishments - far more than almost any other Senator I could name. Many of them don't bear his name and were the result of putting together coalitions to vote for including things in bigger bills (like the mortgage and housing stuff and CAFE standards.

This would likely mean giving Kerry the lead role in an Iraq summit or at Copenhagen (global warming) or in the Middle East. How Kerry is then viewed will be completely determined by how successful he is - and any rumors of being second choice won't matter.

On the other side, the Clinton people were atypically slow. Before they got out their view that Kerry was "lightweight", nearly every pundit pretty much had nothing bad to say about his name being there.

Like you, I can't imagine why No Drama Obama wants the Drama Queen of the 1990s in his administration - other than to keep them under control.

[Firespirit]

99. And now it comes out that Obama met with Richardson today as well

Yet did his people flood the entire media with dishonest, self-aggrandizing crap? Did they say that "He felt it was his if he wanted it"? Did they lie and say that a formal offer had been made? Did they do anything that the Clintonites did? Talk about DRAMA.

Or, did they act in an undramatic, sober way, a way most appropriate to a potential Secretary of State?

I am glad to hear that he met with Bill Richardson over this position. It gives the lie to, well, virtually everything that the Hillaryite staffers put out today, including the "flake" (and therefore the "lightweight") comment. I hope that if Obama did want to consider her, that their behavior today has now ruled that out. I'd like Kerry for this post, but I can live with anyone else, including a Republican, except for Hillary.

[Firespirit]

55. If this happens, I am joining and supporting the GOP from now on.

I am deadly serious. If anyone here thinks that's an idle threat, ask WEL about it -- I have threatened this to her, in private, numerous times before, she took it quite seriously, and this would be the final straw with this worthless political party. I will be supporting Huckabee or any moderate who runs in their primaries, with time, money, and effort, because I take this as such an egregious insult to Kerry that it literally is in the same class as Hillary's own response to the botched joke.

Richardson would not be an insult. Holbrooke would not be an insult. Even Lugar would not be an insult. And, for that matter, Hillary in any other post would not be an insult. But for that transition team to say that he is "lightweight" -- KERRY, lightweight! -- and favor her instead, for that post, and apparently have the ability to influence Obama enough to get him to make the fucking offer to her -- that is an insult of the highest degree. It's an insult to his very large credentials, it's an insult to all that he did for Obama while Hillary was tearing him down (and putting JK on her enemies list), and it's unforgivable. It amounts to stomping on your friend and longtime supporter's face.

I didn't forgive her over her backstabbing in 2006, and once the primaries were over and it became uncool to bash her, I just shut my mouth. But whether I speak of them or not, I hold grudges literally forever and this would be no exception. I cannot even describe how violently I am opposed to this. As earlier this year: ANYONE BUT HILLARY.

[sandnsea]

57. Building a sensible Green Party is a better idea

Let's please move Huckabee and "covenant marriage" to the right fringe where it belongs. Let's move the Dems to the center and have the OTHER mainstream party be the Greens. Better idea, don't you think?

[Firespirit]

60. No, I don't think

The Greens are a fringe party. They were at their high water mark in 2000 and have been fading into obscurity ever since, as is typically the fate of third parties in America. The GOP got 48 million votes and are looking for a comeback. It wouldn't be the first time I was voting for and working to elect someone with whom I disagreed on many points. Did it this year. It'd even be for the same reason as this year, to punish someone else.

That said, I sincerely hope this is deliberate disinformation or a false rumor, but my gut tells me it is not. The mere fact that the offer was made, that JK was seen as less qualified than Hillary Clinton for that post, sinks my opinion of Obama a great deal.

[sandnsea]

62. If you support Huckabee in any realm

I think you're in the way wrong place.

[Firespirit]

64. People leave parties for a wide variety of reasons

I was never on board with "hope." My take is that the world is screwed, that the economy will not recover any time soon and that global warming will eventually be the checkmate, because it's already gone too far (the time to act on it was in the past decade and it is now too late). While I have my own views, I think it's mainly just an intellectual exercise and that it doesn't matter that much what the president's views are on such things, because the tipping points have been reached. I have supported the Democrats based on one issue, honor in governing. Gotta admit I was on board with that particular hope, that they would not give away the most important positions based on anything other than qualifications and the ability to work with the President, or that anyone except the President would be making such decisions at all. We've seen enough of that kind of thing with Bush. If that turns out to be a wrong assumption, I have no reason to support a continuation of his term. I'd like for the opposition to be closer to my own opinions, but you work with what you've got.

If this goes through and I were Kerry, I'd immediately try to get the hell off the SFRC. Hillary as SoS would try to undermine him, and take credit for his work as chairman, at every turn. It's just not worth it.

[politicasista]

58. Susan Rice would not be an insult either

:grouphug:

[karynnj]

72. Huckabee????? Who doesn't believe in global warming - that does not sound like you

1) Remember HRC did not say Kerry was lightweight - and anonymous person supposedly did. One who likely knows it is untrue.
2) Even naming HRC does not mean Obama thinks Kerry a lightweight.
3) I would hope Obama finds other ways of showing he values Kerry insight - which is as simple as being seen with him or crediting him when appropriate.

I think we need to wait and see how Kerry will be treated by an Obama administration. In the primaries and general election, they clearly showed trust, which shows respect, many times. Kerry's speech was NOT vetted. Kerry was given the closing MTP The Obama team used an excerpt of Kerry's Fox News appearance as there soundbite on what Obama and McCain did relative to the financial crisis. (I think it meant something that Teresa sat with Michelle on the Wednesday night. (Also Michelle faces shows her emotions - and she was relaxed and happy (and emotional) when she watched Kerry - At the beginning of each Clinton one she looked wary and throughout them it was clear she was trying to keep a neutral face.)

Although I think he will be one of the President's top allies, the other thing to remember is that he will be a powerful Senator in good standing with the party - and that gives him substantial independence.

[beachmom]

77. So you think the Larry Johnson/PUMA route is how to deal with your hurt feelings?

And let's be clear we're talking about YOUR feelings, not John Kerry's. John Kerry survived VIETNAM and losing a presidential race by a hair; I think he can handle not getting his first choice job, and instead having his second choice, Chairman of the SFRC.

This is not personal. This is politics. Very good politics, I may add. If you recall from 2000 where there was a bitter primary, John McCain went back to the Senate and on many occasions undermined his former rival George W. Bush. Eventually, he fell in line so that he could get the nomination for 2008, but it was very unhelpful to Bush. Now imagine Hillary plotting from the Senate to undermine Obama, to declare his presidency a failure, and challenge him in '12. She has a power base from the Senate. From the SoS? Not really. NOR WOULD KERRY.

Why do you act like SoS is so superior to Chairman of the SFRC? It defies logic. Kerry will be a very powerful Senator, and have the ear of the President. And, if you recall, Kerry wanted McCain as his VP in '04. So for Obama to consider Hillary for SoS is not out of the realm of how JK thinks either.

Look, take a break if you must. But for you to say you are going to support a radical fundamentalist right winger because your feelings are hurt is ridiculous. I understand your disappointment now, but you will have shown yourself to care more about personalities than issues if you go that route.

[fedupinBushcountry]

79. One thing

Kerry did not want McCain as his VP, it was a McCain adviser who came to Kerry it was discussed and that was it. I'm tired of this story being spun.

[beachmom]

80. If Kerry was not interested, then he would have said no right off the bat.

It is not spin. You are correct that a McCain advisor came to the Kerry people; but then Kerry was intrigued. He asked McCain to change parties. There were phone calls. Some of the details are in conflict, but they did talk about that possibility. In the end, McCain would not do it, so the discussion broke down. But had he met Kerry's demands, I think there was a good chance it would have happened. McCain blew it, in my view.

[JI7]

81. what you say is different from the rumors at the time

which made it seem as if Kerry kept on begging McCain to be VP even after he turned it down.

and the asking to change parties part shows that Kerry would not even serious consider until that happened.

[beachmom]

85. Well, Kerry said it himself on Tavis Smiley. Let me shut up, and Kerry speak:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200704/20070405_senjohnkerryter.html

Tavis: One other question about that, and two other quick political questions - I wanna get to the book here in the balance of the time that we have. To your point though, now, a guy you've served long with in the Senate on the other side of the aisle, of course, John McCain has made some news of late, not the least of which is 'cause he ain't raised no money that people thought he was gonna raise.

We'll come back to that in a second. But there are people who think, in fact - well, let me just stay there now. There's some folk, in fact, who think that his money woes have something to do with his position in Iraq. He's obviously very different; diametrically opposed from where you are on this Iraq question. There's a story that broke over the last couple days, though, about what happened in the last presidential election.

Whether or not you reached out to McCain to talk to him about being a running mate, possibly, across the aisle, or whether McCain's people reached out to you. What can you tell me about who did what and when they did it?

Kerry: I think all the - who did what is sort of a - it's not a great use of time, Tavis, to be honest with you. I think a more important question is John McCain's position on Iraq. I believe it is fundamentally flawed. It is the same position that Bush has, which is to increase the numbers of troops, which is to create more of a magnet for luring Al Qaeda and other jihadists to that center of conflict, and to attract terrorists to the cause.

Our own CIA has briefed us. Our intelligence briefings, our own intelligence agency is saying the policy in Iraq today is creating more terrorists. It has emboldened Hamas. It has emboldened Hizbullah. It has strengthened Iran and the region. It has created a fractured Iraq. You don't have to be smart to determine this ain't working.

And there's a point, when you're digging a hole, you stop digging the hole. It seems to me what is absent here, and what has been absent - and for three and a half years, I've been calling for this. I gave speeches in the presidential race in '04 in which I talked about the need for real diplomacy. We've had no real diplomacy. I know the difference.

And leaders in the countries in the region know the difference. And most recently when I was there, I know they feel there's been the absence of this kind of summoning of the parties to the table to resolve the real differences. And I think that absent that, it's going to be very difficult for the United States to have its interests met and to get out of there in a clean way.

But we could get out of there in a way that honors our troops, meets our national interests, sets the Iraqis up more independently, and meets the security needs of the region.

Tavis: I thought the Kerry-McCain question was an interesting and a good question, even though you didn't wanna deal with it.

Kerry: Well, I'm not dissing the question.

Tavis: Here's why, though. I said that only because - it's not to go back and rehash who did what when, I was being somewhat tongue in cheek about that. It's fascinating to me, Senator, respectfully, because it raises a question as to whether or not you think, in the world we live today, in the America we live today, an idea novel in that way could work.

Could it get off the ground? There are a lot of folk who think that you guys in D.C. have it all wrong; that what's lacking is bipartisanship. I ain't telling you nothing you don't know already.

Kerry: Well, let me say this about bipartisanship. I said publicly, and I think it's a well-known fact that Senator McCain and I had a conversation. That is a well-known fact. Senator McCain did not indicate a willingness to seriously entertain the idea of switching parties, be different or something, and so we never got that far. But the point I would make is that we need bipartisanship, and had I been elected president, I was determined to have at least four members of the Republican Party as members of my Cabinet.

Because I thought the country needed to see that we could work together, talk together, and really put the interests of everybody on the table. Didn't mean we're always gonna agree, but we gotta - people are tired of watching it, I'll tell you. That's part of what this book is about. It's a reflection of what the grassroots are doing, because Washington isn't doing it.

And here in California, Governor Schwarzenegger's taking the lead, along with legislators, to provide leadership on the environment. It's setting the example to other states in the country; Massachusetts has done some things. But the federal government's gotta step in here and recognize that we're gonna need China and India and other countries all to come to the table. For six and a half years, this administration has done nothing to advance one of the most serious challenges to all of us, and it's disgraceful.

[fedupinBushcountry]

93. I read it a different way

as JK said "be different or something, and so we never got that far ." The only way possible is if McCain became a Democrat and that is why VP was out of the question for JK. JMO

[Firespirit]

100. I do care more about personalities than issues

I thought that would be abundantly clear by now. I supported Anyone But Hillary. I don't believe in the message of hope, never did, and still don't. I think it was just a slogan. I supported Obama because he was Not Hillary and I am not ashamed of that.

Look, if you are a liberal, and you live in the Deep South, you can't get too attached to pet issues, or you will be disappointed every single time you go to the polls. In my Senate race this year, both major party candidates would support making me a second-class citizen, as did 80% of the state in 2004. That issue has become increasingly important to me, as I get older and can look more realistically at my prospects for a relationship and a family, but if I were to vote on issues, I would have had to abstain from that race. I vote character. I vote based on who is or is not a liar, who is or is not corrupt, who is or is not a dishonorable sleaze willing to step on the heads of his/her friends for personal advancement. Which is probably just as well, considering that I don't expect anything to be done with respect to the issues I care most about, the economy and the environment. No one is quite radical enough to fix the one, and I think it's too late for the other. It's not about Kerry; it's about basic honor, which is why I would have no beef with any of the names floated except for Hillary. That is a dishonorable choice.

I used to support many Republicans. I was once a Randian Libertarian. It would not be a huge deal to shift back again. A party that shows no honor does not deserve to be treated honorably.

[beachmom]

105. Fair enough. I live in an area which is pretty depressing politically as well.

But I view the vote as a cold calculation of strategy. Areas around me are changing demographically, and obviously my previous home, Virginia, has completely transformed from red state to blue state. So, for that, I vote Democratic in the General Election, and do participate in the primaries. Even in primaries, I don't vote personality alone. I couldn't stand Vernon Jones here, who on the issues had endorsed Bush twice and on personality had been in trouble with assaulting (and possibly raping) one of his employees. That is an extreme case, but shows how one can calculate. I do think the 2008 presidential primaries were unique: there was such agreement within the Dem party as to what direction we wanted to go, that personality was the only thing left to differentiate the two candidates.

I used to vote for Republicans down ticket, because I wanted to be an Independent. Every single time I voted Republican I regretted it later. So now I don't. Even if I don't care for the Dem, I still vote for them to send a message that this is not a 100% Republican district.

As to corruption, well, Obama said something interesting in a Foreign Relations Hearing questioning Crocker and Petraeus. He spoke of a "manageable level of corruption in Iraq" for which it wouldn't be great but would be tolerable so there would be stability and we could leave. That is my view as well. You will never root out all corruption, but you can reduce it to a level where the people aren't affected in their daily lives by it. I think Obama will be a million times less corrupt than Bush and Clinton (and to be clear, I think Clinton was much better than Bush). But there will be corruption as there always is in politics. Even Kerry wouldn't have been able to eliminate it all had he been President. So I am a realist on this issue. Finally, take a look at some of our "great" Presidents. They weren't that great if you take a purist standpoint.

I hear you on feeling impotent. We have environmental problems that will never be solved (water). Democrats are not very good here in Georgia, and Republicans like Chambliss are intolerably corrupt. Interestingly, this Jim Martin guy is not bad, and fairly progressive for a GA Democrat. But I think my voting prospects overall won't be much different than yours. I get around that by focussing on other states or national causes. That is the beauty of the internet.

[Mass]

83. I would be disappointed, but I would not go to the GOP. I may work more to change the party from the

inside (I have felt a lot of common points for PdA, even if some people are just plain stupid).

The truth is that I did not support Obama for a Clinton III, and putting Hillary in a position where she has no natural inclination, just to give her a place that she may want, added to the media mess provoked clearly by her people, is not a good sign that things will change.

While I do not necessarily care whether Kerry gets it or not (who knows what he wants anyway), I do not see what bringing her in this position (where she would come with Bill attached, compared to other positions where she has shown an interest in like health or defense), would represent a real change. So, I would probably go back to some inclination that I have had. We need change, and change starts by not letting the same ones in the party get what they want. Sorry, but I have never considered that Bill did all he could during his two terms for regular people, and, though I may disagree with Kerry or Obama on specific points, I am seeing them as a possibility of change.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[ginnyinWI]

40. this report sounds a lot more credible than the rumors flying around here today.

Blind quotes on MSNBC are not exactly stellar sources, yet they run them to fill time. Nobody at DU should take them seriously.


The only way a sitting Senator would really want to become SoS would be if they were unhappy with their job, right? Because typically SoS's last for just one term. That's four years and then they are out--and out of their Senate as well. I could imagine either Hillary or Kerry going for this, but only if they didn't mind losing their Senate seats. And only they know that.

[beachmom]

47. There is definitely some dissent amongst some smart bloggers that Hillary

would not even want the SoS post:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/1_it_was_a_private.php

6. The CW in Washington is that Obama wants Clinton in his cabinet more than Clinton wants to be in the cabinet, the theory being that the moment she steps into the administration, she loses her power base, she loses her Senate seat forever, and she loses her voice on domestic policy. She concedes her political identity. Actually, on policy: uncuriously silent in all this is Sen. Joe Biden, who has strong foreign policy ideas of his own and a bigger platform to share them with Obama. Would Clinton become a glorified PR tool for Obama if she accepted the job? A Powell, rather than a Rice?

By the way, these are arguments for Kerry to not want the job either, except that he is a patriot and would do it for the sake of the country, never mind the loss in a political power base.

Then there is Josh Marshall:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/244345.php

Don't Get It

Secretaries of State don't usually last more than a single presidential term. And sometimes they don't make it that long. So, for the life of me, I do not understand why Hillary Clinton would want to give up what is in all likelihood a senate seat for life to run the State Department for Barack Obama.

Late Update: This post, not surprisingly, has generated a big response. And a few of you have suggested that this is a way for Hillary to angle for another shot at the presidency in 2012 or 2016. But that strikes me as deeply, deeply improbable. Never an easy thing to challenge a sitting president of your own party, next to impossible to do it from his own cabinet. I don't have an answer on why either party would want this appointment. But that ain't the reason.

--Josh Marshall

Again, compelling arguments for Kerry, too. Why would he want to give up a senate seat for life?

[JI7]

48. i only want him for sec of state if he will be for 8 years

i would prefer he stay in the Senate.

[politicasista]

52. He can stay but

he won't get credit for anything that President Obama will sign. Reid and the DLC wing will try to make sure that doesn't happen.

I don't know what will happen, but I hope I am wrong about all this. It's a mixed bag. I understand Uncle Ted's health situation and feeling that he can accomplish more in the Senate than SOS or AG, but I don't know if he will be allowed to "spread out" because of the rules of the Senate and at last check, Reid is still majority leader and just because Obama will be in the WH doesn't mean he'll play along with Kerry in order to get things done. In fact, my dad doesn't care for him and thinks he should be replaced.

I don't think anyone should be entitled to any cabinet position, but I think if Obama didn't consider the good senator for a cabinet position, (in a historical administration), I think that would be a slap in the face of the hard work and time that Kerry put in for Obama. Although, in the end, Obama will choose what is best for his administration, America, and the rest of the world.

I believe Obama appreciates the help that Kerry gave for him, but I don't understand how staying in the Senate is going to give him more power? Before and after 2004, people are still not aware of what he accomplished in the Senate (the stupid, whore media :mad:). I think that people (like on TVOne's DNC Live After Party) want to make him out to be a no people person, "hold your nose" candidate, fading way into another irrelevant Democratic Senator. I am sorry, but I do believe that.

It's bad enough that his endorsement of Obama and DNC speech were marginalized and ignored (at least in the black, urban press), what makes everyone think that people will pay attention the second time around? People will only pay attention to who Obama picks and who is in his cabinet. Screw everybody else.

I got karynnj into some semi-flack (sorry!) for asking what did VPE Biden accomplish as SFRC Chair, but I want to know because I am tired of good Dems getting overlooked in favor of ones who being sold as the only ones that care about the Democratic Party minus PE Obama and VPE Biden.

[WildEyedLiberal]

63. I acutally completely agree - I don't think Kerry would get a shred of credit in the Senate

Reid marginalized and ignored him and stole his ideas and policies for four years - who really thinks that's going to stop now? I have NO faith in Harry Reid to give JK the time of day, and as long as he's Majority Leader, that's all that matters.

And this will be my last comment on the SoS issue. I just pray JK gets it, because another four years of the Senate and media pretending he doesn't exist is not something I'm looking forward to.

[politicasista]

65. Right.

And I know I have said some off the wall, negative things about Kerry (apologies to everyone that have met or know him and Momma T. :)), but I really feel that way. I feel the same way you, Fire, and wisteria do. Being a senator may allow Kerry to do more, but the same cast of characters are still there (and don't look like they will be leaving anytime soon), so other than Obama and Biden, what's going to change? The lack of respect will still be there.

Like many, I have tried to stay out of the cabinet speculation threads, but the so called leaks will leave one dizzy after a while. These are serious times in the world. These cabinet positions are turning into popularity contests rather than considering who is best qualified and can do and be the best in the area.

I know there is the saying be careful what you ask or wish for, but I don't see why he shouldn't be considered SOS or in any cabinet position. At least he won his primary.

[karynnj]

70. I give Kerry more credit -

No one thinks the Iraq exit plan was Reid's. I do think that Kerry, like anyone, wants credit and he wanted to be President - but more than that he clearly wants to be of service to his country and make it better. Getting his ideas passed has to be good because he believes in them.

Look at the endorsements in the MA paper's that Tay, Mass and others posted - most are still on the first page of this group. They are awesome. To me the astonishing thing is that with no real media support in his entire career - he got the nomination and his agenda has changed the agenda of the Democratic party. Additionally in serious times, he has always been one of the people the talk show people, who ordinarily give time to their favorites (could Palin please go away or be indicted for something), turn to to get serious comments.

[beachmom]

82. Harry Reid does not run the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

John Kerry will be the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the most prestigious and the oldest committee in the Senate. I mean, did you guys NOT watch how the Senate works these last years? Biden had all the power. Now Kerry will.

Being Secretary of State was always about service. At the pleasure of the POTUS. In the Senate, Kerry can set his own agenda. He has REAL power, which has no relation whatsoever to how many times his name is mentioned on cable news.

And I guess everyone here can belittle the high speed rail bill, but if it gets done it will be the lasting legacy of John Kerry. MORE important than settling the Iraq War, because it will affect people's lives every day.

I guess everyone needs to work through their disappointment if Kerry is not SoS. I always thought either option was a great opportunity. I guess the negativity is going to win out tonight.

[karynnj]

68. Actually, I got myself into that flack

I think that there are two realities that are mixed here.

One is real legislation - the fact is that there are few Senators who really got as much passed as Kerry did. He (and the rest of the Senate) know that Kerry was the one who got the money to renegotiate mortgages, they also know affordable housing fund was his etc (read any of the good endorsements here - restating everything is silly) Kerry also knows that the reason Obama comes in with relative unity among Democrats and many Repubicans is because Kerry pushed for his plan. The reason the US was able to sign a treaty at Bali was Kerry NEGOTIATED (though without that word) with many delegations hearing their needs and expressing the American ones. the fact is that he has been a very productive Senator - a leader making very real change.

The other is the media - They, as you say, may not give him credit - though at some point they may turn around. The fact though is that it is very likely that he will never run again outside Massachusetts. From all that the MA people here say, he is respected and liked - something very obvious in any video I've seen of him in MA. It would be great if he got the praise he has deserved, but it is more important at this point that it is true that he deserved it and the people most important to him know it. Being a 5 term Senator, with a wife and extended family that love him and the ability to work on things he cares deeply about is pretty good.

The fact is that is that there are people - many in the media who dislike him. Some are people who dreamed since 1992 of a possible HRC presidency and called it inevitable even in early 2008 - if some of us think Kerry might have made the difference, don't you think some of them do as well? If they do, they may always resent Kerry - unless at some point they see Obama as better. For many that point will never come. Though it could. To give you an idea of how what people are willing to say about people they as having damaged their hero, here's a paragraph from a book by Jody Powell, Carter's Press Secretary. (My husband buys lots of political books and I was cleaning and found this.) This was published in 1984, and he was clearly still bitter.

"If someone proposed a political novel featuring a character with Kennedy's record of nonaccomplishment in the Senate - not to mention the personal baggage that he has acquired - who was nevertheless a perennial and serious candidate for the highest office in the land, it would be dismissed as impossibly fantastic. Yet we found ourselves, well before the midterm point in the Carter administration reading excited and adoring speculation in the press about whether or not the savior from MA might consent to offer himself in service to his party and the nation by running against an incumbent President of his own party."

There are likely some Carter people who still dislike Kennedy, but I seriously doubt any would write that paragraph now. Kennedy now is likely seen as having done more for the party than Carter by the majority. (I think Clinton would win a poll here vs him, but I think that there is an easy case to make that Kennedy achieved more in terms of change Democrats wanted than Clinton as well.)

[politicasista]

73. I will agree

I saw your post above.

The only thing is that Kerry isn't Kennedy as far as prestige goes. He also doesn't have the same kind of prestige of say, Gore of having ran against Bush and "won" had the election not been stolen from him, and going on to do big things like win a NPP, Academy Award, and other accomplishments for his work on the environment. He doesn't have that kind of respect. He still has to fight that perception that he wasn't (or isn't) tough enough and that he isn't likable or a people person (even thought their are stories that disagree, but) only we hear them, other things, and everything from 2004. That's just the way it is I guess. :shrug:.

Since this story hasn't come straight from the horse's mouth (LOL! Obama), I will just hold back and see what happens. Que sera, sera, we shall see.

[sandnsea]

56. Yes. It fills her foreign policy gap

And I'll be generous and say for 2012.

[JI7]

59. but wasn't it Obama who had the foreign policy gap for this year ?

she was viewed as having foreign policy experience and it didn't help her beat Obama(didn't help McCain either). and there is no way she would be able to do a campaign, especially a primary campaign which starts at latest 2 years from now if she was sec of state.

if she does want the job then i think it's just because she wants a position that stands out. she doesn't think she can be president anymore and staying in the senate does not interest her.

[sandnsea]

61. He was right on the war, she had tea parties

He helped Lugar with weapons proliferation legislation - she lied about being under sniper fire.

She had a huge gap in foreign policy and this would fill it.

Of course, simply having a more prestigious job is certainly another possibility.

But I do think she wants it.

So much for her commitment to health care.

[karynnj]

69. Only because the media took only Clinton, Obama and Edwards seriously

i also agree that unless Obama kicks her out quickly - over some political point she could then try to spin to her advantage, I think it rules out 2012. I think achieving that would be nearly impossible. (Resigning because she wants to wouldn't work because she then looks really bad.

[JI7]

74. look at this , Richardson talked about Sec of State with Obama team today

http://kob.com/article/stories/S662623.shtml?cat=520

i posted it in GD also.

becacuse of the bad stuff over Richardson endorsing Obama coudl it be that Obama wanted to talk to HIllary about it first. not to get her approval or anything but just to let her know and get her thoughts on things.

i would be ok with Richardson as Sec of State.

[karynnj]

88. I really don't know about him

There were many reports speaking the golden resume he had, but when looked at closely - there are some really goood things and a lot of very poor things. I'm still blown away by his insane idea in teh primaries to steal water from the Great Lakes. I don't want him touching anything that has an ecological component - and I think the SOS deals with the global warming treaties. (environmentalists were also not happy with his support of a plutonium dump.)

As a mathematician who worked with scientists, I really have major problems with how he dealt with Wen Ho Lee.

I didn't like that he was pro-Contras while in the House and I see mixed reports on how good a UN Ambassador he was.

Your comment though really makes sense - with regards to Clinton.

[JI7]

89. who would you prefer between Richardson and Clinton

Kerry is obviously the best choice to me.

but i was thinking who i would like if it wasn't Kerry. of the names mentioned Richardson is the one i prefer. but so far not many names have been mentioned.

how about people like Clark, Holbrooke, i wonder if they even talked to that many others.

[Mass]

90. Richardson. I like the idea of Susan Rice also, but it is unlikely.

[karynnj]

91. I would prefer a no drama consumate proffessional diplomat with years of experience

who could work with Joe Biden easily. As to names, Susan Rice seemed fantastic both in 2004 and in 2008 as a fp surrogate. A career person who was impressive in committee was Nickolas Burns. (I know little of either)

The fact is I had not heard of Holbroke (another possibility), Albright or earler SoS's before they were picked. I can't think of any in any administration who were high powered politicians.

[Muttocracy]

97. if I'm thinking of the right guy (I'm bad with names), Biden likes Holbrooke

I think RH was testifying at SFRC.

yes - this photo looks familiar
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/08/28/162711.aspx


Searching for info and this is an interesting old piece from 2004

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/apr/11/news/adna-foreignside11

[Muttocracy]

98. recent thread on Holbrooke pushing for Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7627007

[JI7]

76. Kerry got huge praise from Zimmerman on CNN

some right wing loser who has a history of attacking Kerry tried to ridicule Kerry but came off sounding stupid. Zimmerman stood firm in his defense of Kerry .

[MBS]

84. Chris Matthews also said that Kerry was superbly qualified

"he speaks more languages than many European foreign ministers". .etc

[Mass]

78. Clearly, Kerry is influential in foreign policy and will say so. Clearly, the Pakistan president

calls on him.

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59205&Itemid=1

[Mass]

86. Well, I guess this sums up my feeling.

The way rumors came, in the last two weeks, from Kerry pushing Obama to get the job, to this new rumor pf Obama offering it to Clinton, is now presented as a way to diss Kerry. This may be why I do not believe this is innocent from the Clinton people.

Certainly, Obama should be able to choose who he wants, which is why I resented the rumors about Kerry pressing him (which were aptly rebuked by Bridgit Rourke. But now, whether this offer is true or not, it is used (and has for a few days now) as a new way to diss Kerry. This is not by chance, and this should explain why some people may feel awkward.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/235966.html

Clinton's inclusion on Obama's short-list is seen in Washington as a lack of confidence in John Kerry, an early front-runner for secretary of state. Kerry has sent out signals he wants the job, and Obama owes him a debt of political loyalty. Kerry launched Obama's career when he gave him a speaking slot at the Democrats' convention in 2004.

(This has nothing to do with what would be my disappointment if Obama chooses her, rather than somebody with obvious credentials, and they are many. But this has to do with the way they play this game: dirty).

[Democrafty]

87. I agree - SoS is Obama's choice. Whoever gets it, gets it, and

I'll be fine with that.

But I hate the way this story is being reported, and I hated it all along. I hate that EOR and Beatty spread the SoS rumor as if they had some kind of insight into these things that no one else does.

I hate the way the rumors are being used to make qualified people look desperate, and unsatisfied with their already amazing jobs.

And now I hate that HRC has been shoved in the middle of the story for no other reason than the story has gotten that big.

Ugh.

[beachmom]

92. You are right. The presentation here is absurd.

It is revenge for Kerry endorsing Obama. When is the media going to tell the Clintons they are out of power and that their word doesn't add up to much anymore?

[MBS]

94. I agree with both of you. . I also hate the reporting on this

Silly at best, and the lies, innuendo and all-round misrepresentation of Kerry are just the worst. I hate it hate it hate it.ALL of it.

Absolutely Obama should pick who he wants, and I have no doubt he's thought through every political ramification of each of his cabinet choices, not to mention SoS surely most of all. So if he does pick her as SoS (a choice that I would find deeply disappointing), I could at least console myself with the thought that Obama would surely have thought through every single political wrinkle. Still,to me, and quite apart from my own disappointment were he to make such a choice, the whole concept of HRC as SoS just doesn't fit , you know? I still can't imagine it happening. Something just doesn't smell right. While I am sure that Obama has been talking to her about various possibilities, it's still hard for me to imagine that SoS would be the actual outcome.

[ProSense]

102. Interesting

article.

[Mass]

103. Stating the obvious. Why would Obama put Hillary in a position where Bill would be involved.

And why would Hillary accept a position where Bill will outshine her 9 times out of 10. This would be craziness.

She has shown no interest in foreign policy. Put her HHS of Defense, if really there is a need for her to be on the cabinet.

[Mass]

104. According to the Post, the sortlist is Clinton, Kerry, Richardson

(alphabetic order)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/11/15/ST2008111500401.html

While AP said the opposite:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/15/clinton_interviews_for_state_dept/

Who knows? And honestly, sad if it is the case.

[Mass]

106. Well, I guess I will take a step out of politics right now. Sorry, I really had hoped

that the Clintons would stop being the focal point of this country. Indeed, it was a reason why I supported Obama early on. Obviously, I was too naive to believe it could happen. But, right now, it is really disappointing. Even if I still hope it is a dead end for her, I feel totally disillusioned (and this has nothing to do with the topic of this original thread).

ADDED: there is something very disturbing with all that. After all these leaks for now more than a week on this psychodrama, after having leaked (whoever leaked it) that she accepted, now she says it is not a done deal. Can we stop the game, please: supporters and opponents of her at State have nothing to gain with that, and my esteem for the transition team is getting lower and lower every minute right now.

[karynnj]

108. You're not alone

We still know very little about Obama - and you can't realy tell what his own fp actions will be from his speeches. What I hate most is that many will see this as teh Clintons boxed him in - not a way to look strong starting your administration. I know that it is irrational but it seems like the Clintons have become akin to an invasive weed - that you just can't get rid of. I just hope Oba will quickly counter the idea that HRC supporters alredy have in some threads, that Obama is "giving FP" to the Clintons because he will be too busy on domestic things (ignoring the Constitution gives the President a bigger role on that than on domestic issues.

The really sad thing is that most of the people who really wanted change don't get that it was Kerry, more than Obama, Dean or Edwards who likely would have really worked for it. (At one time I thought their blindness was caused by not being able to see past the IWR to all he said and did over a lifetime - now I think it is just they are easily captured by superficial things.)

That said - no Democrat will veto S-Chip or the minimum wage or appoint an Alito. This was what I thought in 2007 when faced with the likelihood of her as President.

[MBS]

112. "invasive weed"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: A Talking Head this week said something to the effect that "It's never over with the Clintons"

And, yeah, Kerry was and is the real agent of change. . I've been so dismayed by that blindness and superficiality of members of my own party. .
Well, he's going to be making things happen in the Senate and beyond. He's going to have a very good six years.

[Muttocracy]

109. Sigh.

I feel like I did through most of the primaries.

After Biden and Dodd dropped out I was unhappy and less interested.

Well, Kerry would have been an awesome Sec of State, and I'd rather have someone more like him in Sec. of State, but I'm kind of glad he's not going to be drawn into this drama as much from here on.

[Democrafty]

110. You make a good point -

Anything can happen with the new admin. I suppose the same *could* be true with the Senate, but it's much more of a known quantity. Specifically, we know JK excels there :)

As somebody who primarily supports Biden, what are your feelings on how the cabinet looks to be shaping up? Do you see this admin as potentially Biden-friendly?

[Muttocracy]

115. Honestly, I'm baffled

As for Secretary of State, I can't believe Biden would go along with Bosnia-sniper-fire, Kyl-Lieberman. Biden dodged a lot of chances to attack other Dems in the debates, but he was pissed off at Clinton for her Kyl-Lieberman vote.

Honestly, my personal beliefs are way to the left of Biden and even Kerry - but I'm a pragmatist who likes people who get stuff done, understand the details, and who aren't super-hawkish. I'm not happy about all the Dems who voted for the Iraq War Resolution, but I especially can't forgive those who voted for Kyl-Lieberman. If I understood it correctly, it was basically calling Iran's internal security force a terrorist group, giving permission for Bush&Co to go after them. After that Biden said he would personally call for impeachment if Bush moved forward, and he was irate with Bush's stunt over Iran in Israel (appeasement etc.) And of course the Bosnia story is pretty important to Biden.

She will take foreign policy influence away from Biden and Kerry - Biden wouldn't have wanted to be VP or Sec of State for Clinton. She has no experience for this, and a record of bad judgement. She said McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama.

Why not Kerry, or Holbrooke (I thought Biden would push for Holbrooke), or Hagel, or Lugar, or Menendez. I'm not crazy about Richardson but he would have been better.

I don't know as much about the other appointments, and they seem a mixed bunch. I'm just disheartened.

[MBS]

117. My mood is similar . . .I'm not ecstatic about any of the appts

except for relief that Summers is not Sec of Treasury. (economic advisor is OK, public face of the treasury dept, and manager of same, no way)
The appts so far aren't exactly the profile of "change I can believe in" , or at least the change I hoped for. . but I guess we'll see.

[Muttocracy]

118. yes, I haven't read about the actual appointee, but glad it's not Summers! nt

[beachmom]

113. It is not the Transition Team's fault. All the leaks are from Clinton people,

and to be fair to Hillary, a lot of them were not in her inner group who she consulted on being SoS, but people speculating from outside the group. I guess I am wondering why the media runs with every story. I think you should ignore a lot of it.

[Mass]

114. Listen, I have a lot of concerns about having a Clinton in the cabinet.

Among them, who will she bring as deputies: people around her like O'Hanlon, who thought the surge worked, James Rubin, ... or will she integrate people closer to Obama? Obviously, everyone of these people is better than the current team, but once again, there are much better people on the Obama side.

I have no clue where the rumors were from and will not even speculate. The simple idea that somebody could have thought such an operation could be done without these leaks when it comes to a Clinton does not belong in the real world. And frankly, all these leaks make it harder to reconcile with the idea of her as SoS. Just finish the story that people can get used to it.

[MBS]

116. Chris Matthews tonight dubbed the Clinton entourage

"the menagerie".
I have a lot of concerns about this appointment, too.
Only consolation to me is that cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the president.

[politicasista]

119. I am now disillusioned

Not because Kerry isn't SOS (he'll be fine now) but Clinton fans gleefully rubbing it in as if Obama passed over Kerry for her, so she gets the big job in an historical administration and he stays in the Senate where he belongs. Just a turnoff.

Now I am totally disillusioned when it should be a historical moment. :(

[Luftmensch067]

120. Politicasista, look at your sig

Do you think Rosa would be disillusioned?

We all have to live up to the courage and hope of those who went before us, as Rosa did. JK does that every day. We can, too!

You don't think there were people in positions of power that we wouldn't have liked much, even in times we might have considered times of hope? Of course there were! Do we remember them now? No -- we remember Rosa. We remember the people who made a difference.

No one can destroy this historical moment.

[politicasista]

123. No, she wouldn't have

I remember Rosa. I remember MLK. I appreciate Uncle Ted and Kerry.

You're right. It should be a good time. And it is. No one should take that away.

Still, I don't get the part about gloating. I am now happy that Kerry will have a gavel and be SFRC Chair.

[Mass]

121. Not my problem. When she is out of the government and he is still chair of the

foreign relation committee, you can gloat at them if this is your problem. (I thought you got that part earlier, apparently NOT).

Politics should not be about people. It should be about ideas, and I do not care about the foreign policy ideas that the Clintons and their friends bring with them. Sorry, but this is where I am getting disillusioned.

[politicasista]

122. I am not gloating at anyone

Confused? :shrug:

I am glad that Kerry is going to be chairman of the SFRC. And yes, I did read your links. They were helpful in understanding the big picture. Gee.

[MonteLukast]

107. I wish he hadn't tapped Governor Napolitano for DHS Secretary.

Arizona needs SOME Dems around.

Another good case for why we shouldn't cannibalize our Democratic Congress.

[MBS]

111. oh, yeah. Plus she was the only competent and non-criminal

governor they'd had in ages. . .

[beachmom]

124. Well, I guess there was no escape from the gossip at Politco:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15890.html

The new administration still has some major posts to fill, including heads for the departments of Defense, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Labor and Energy, not to mention the Environmental Protection Agency. But a number of the biggest prizes seem to have already been won, and a handful of serious contenders already been passed over in the speed-dating game that is the Obama transition.

Here's a look at five major players and the jobs they have apparently not been given:

John Kerry, State — The Massachusetts senator and former Democratic presidential nominee was a passionate, articulate and early supporter of Obama, a fixture on both conference calls and the Sunday talk show circuit. Kerry’s people say he never had any expectations of being named secretary of State but other Democrats say he made no secret of his Foggy Bottom aspirations. “He’s crushed,” said one Senate aide. Kerry would have been a fine pick, sources say, but Obama apparently had his eye on Hillary Clinton since the early fall. He does get an impressive consolation prize: the chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee vacated by Joe Biden.

I think "crushed" is pushing it. I want to know who these anonymous sources are.

The Mass. fallout:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/23/a_political_parlor_game/

A political parlor game

Spare a thought for your public officials this morning. The poor pets must be hurting.

We learned on Friday that President-elect Barack Obama's secretary of state will be his former rival Hillary Clinton. That means US Senator John Kerry's hopes for his dream job are dashed.

Our junior senator can't catch a break. He puts his own presidential ambitions behind him, comes out for Obama early, and takes plenty of heat for it. He campaigns hard for the Illinois senator. He makes the top of a zillion short lists for the nation's top diplomatic post, a job for which he has the chops. Then, Obama passes him over in favor of Clinton.

Still, at least Kerry has that nice new Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairmanship with which to console himself. The rest of the state's political establishment? All they have are broken dreams.

So many hungry folks up and down the political food chain had pinned their hopes on Kerry's fortunes that you could fill Fenway Park with them.

[Mass]

125. “He’s crushed,” said one Senate aide. (can we have a name. Know for whom he works???)

Gossip world. It seems to me that Kerry is very busy for somebody who is crushed.

[karynnj]

126. and smiling a lot the few times I saw him on CSPAN

[Luftmensch067]

127. I agree -- who are these Senate sources? Bet they don't work for JK!

Also I think the "hungry folks" with "broken dreams" better hope they can someday deserve the position he has EARNED instead of trying to poach it while he's still in it!