My first pick for Secretary of State was John Kerry, but I began to root for Susan Rice after I saw how she was mistreated. Now that she has withdrawn her name from consideration (in admirable fashion), it looks like the pick will be John Kerry after all. The fact that David Ignatius endorses Kerry is somewhat disquieting, but I still think he is the right man for the job at this period in time.
Other than Bill Clinton, there isn’t anyone who could replace Hillary Clinton’s stature. Kerry was the Democratic nominee in 2004 and came within a whisker of winning the presidency. He’s spent three decades on the Foreign Relations Committee, which oversees the State Department. He’s been the chairman of the committee for Obama’s whole first term in office.
Kerry has also earned the position. By tapping Barack Obama as the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he made Obama’s presidency possible. He endorsed Obama over Clinton fairly early, when it could easily have backfired on him. He took his disappointment in losing out to Hillary for Sec. of State with grace and went to work for the president in the Senate. And then he helped Obama prep for the debates by playing the role of Mitt Romney.
The two men may not be personally close, but there is no question that Kerry has done everything he could to put Obama in the White House and to help him succeed once there. If Kerry were to be passed over in these circumstances, it would need some explanation.
And I am not worried about Scott Brown winning his Senate seat. That is not going to happen. Pretty soon, Elizabeth Warren will be the senior senator from Massachusetts. How weird is that?
I know nothing about down-ticket MA politics. Who will the Dems run? Obviously not Coakley. Deval Patrick? A Kennedy? What’s the bench like?
I think Marty Meehan or Ed Markey would probably do just fine. Don’t think we’ll run into a Martha Coakley situation redux. That, plus the fact that Brown revealed himself to be a bit of an asshole in the last election…have to think there’s no way he’s going to get 52% of the vote (and that was in a very favorable environment).
I’m not so sure. Special elections are always dicey and if a non-incumbent seat is contested in an off year election, that has risk too. But Kerry deserves the nod so we’ll have to take our chances.
This. With a smaller (whiter, older, more conservative) electorate, Scott Brown absolutely could win a special election for Senate again. (Not saying he would, just that there’s good reason to think he might.)
Another option (if State House Dems, including Gov. Patrick, are willing to take the heat for it) is to change the state law back to what it was before Ted Kennedy’s death—the governor appoints someone to fill out Kerry’s term.
Patrick should appoint Barney Frank as a placeholder and run for it himself.
I like that. Good thinking, that would work.
Barney has said he doesn’t want an appointment.
But that would be great.
I’ve got no problem with Kerry at State, but it’s beyond frustrating to see another GOP hissyfit rewarded by giving them what they wanted.
Plus, I don’t know how the key prospects stack up against each other, but is Chuck Hagel really the best we can come up with for Defense?
Rice for “fiscal cliff.”
Watch.
Politics as usual.
The UniParty strikes again.
AG
Yeah.
Right, Booman.
My kinda guy.
Howie Carr-Boston Herald
Just who I want negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood and Vladimir Putin.
Please.
Just because he’s a “loyal Dem” doesn’t mean he’s not a shallow, asshole hustler.
WTFU.
AG
Go to school.
Talk about going to school. This is a guy who couldn’t handle Karl Rove, who took him to school in 2004. And you want him dealing with some real tough guys instead of that creampuff? Please.
AG
P.S. So you think that he wrote that BCCI paper? He’s an executive, Booman. A desk sitter and a glad-hander. He hires people to do his work. He is exactly the type of corporate/politcal hustler that has brought this country low over the past 50 years. He’ll be a disaster at State. Watch.
P.P.S. Remember in 2007 when that Florida kid got tasered right in front of Kerry while he was making a speech? Andrew Meyer. You know what Meyer was asking? He was asking about Kerry’s criminal passivity when the Butch/Rove team stole the 2004 election. Kerry did nothing. He stood there, as blank-faced as George Butch II reading his little goat story while the 9/11 attack happened. He mumbled “Officers…can we…” as the situation escalated. He did nothing, this so-called war hero.
Nothing.
It’s an education to see the videos and hear Kerry’s weak inaction.
“Officers…can we…”
And this is who you want in the driver’s seat when the shit goes down in the Middle East?
Please.
Being a good Dem is one thing, I guess, but really, Booman. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Please.
P.P.P.S. Say what you will about Susan Rice…if that same thing went down in the same situation, do you think that she would have passively accepted it? No way. First of all, she would have torn a strip off of Meyers and if the cops interfered she would have been in their face from the get-go. Is this Kerry act what you want from our government? Weak, passive acceptance of brutal stupidity? Where does it end? From a stolen election to tasers to torture to drone murder. Where does it end, Booman?
Where does it end?
I wonder if Arthur is even aware that his oh-so-outsiderish Kerry-bashing is just the regurgitation of the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign’s talking points?
Yes, Arthur, the guy with the silver star from combat, who’s been the point man on Pakistan for four years, just isn’t tough, like someone who plays a horn for a living.
Howie Carr?!
I mean, I don’t actually like Kerry much at all, but Howie fucking Carr?
One stupid troll quotes another stupid troll. What’s so surprising about that?
Man, that was a hit piece if ever I saw one. That guy would have us believe Kerry doesn’t have a single redeeming quality worth writing about. That’s bull.
Look, no one’s perfect and we all have foibles but Kerry served in Vietnam when he didn’t have to. He’s been a loyal Democrat and has done his best to support the president. He’s smart and loyal and trustworthy.
True.
True, in a false kind of way.
#1-“Serving in Vietnam” is nothing to be proud of. Not really. It was a bullshit war on every level. Were people brave over there? Yes, they were. Some of them. But they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
#2-Apparently on some level he did “have to,” Parallax. For what reasons? A future political career, maybe? Family pressure? Societal and peer pressure? I dunno. But I do know this…I was in S.E. Asia during the Vietnam war for almost a month…Vietnam and Bangkok. On tour with a band. During that time I did some heavy hanging with any number of servicemen. No officers, all enlisted men. Some drafted, some volunteered. To a man they wanted out. They saw the truth of the matter as soon as they got there and so did I.
Again…not necessarily a topic for boasting. We are on a very bad track right now. Would it have been worse with Republicans? Yes. Is it a bad track anyway? bet on it. See my sig for more on that idea.
Who says?
He’s consistent, I’ll give him that. He goes to power and serves it. Smart? I guess that’s all in your definition of the word.
“Loyal?” “Trustworthy?”
Ask his first wife. He married up. Twice. Here’s what she has to say about their life together:
He’s a practicing Catholic who had an annullment (undoubtedly bought) 9 years after his divorce. On what grounds? He won’t say. Here’s what he did say, though. In public while yucking around with that execrable piece of shallow radio shit Don Imus.
“Loyal?”
I guess it depends on your definition.
i can’t wait until the first crisis w/Kerry at State.
Weak.
AG
you’re criticizing the annulment? without it, he couldn’t get divorced and remarried and remain catholic? you’re blaming him for the R Church’s problems? how about laying the pedophile priest situation on him too while you’re at it.
He was already remarried. For more than a year. And much like his involvement in Vietnam…a war promoted by a devolved U.S. political and economic system…his continued involvement in an equally or even more devolved religious system is in my view a sign of either stupidity or at best just another political crutch. I have nothing against real Catholicism…I came up an Irish Catholic…nor do I have anything against any other real approach to the worship of the divine universe. But when religions become havens for pedophiles, racists and murderers…when they devolve…then it is time for right-thinking human beings to get the fuck out.
I did, long ago and far away.
My problem with Kerry?
I do not believe that he is a right-thinking man.
Simple as that.
Not in my universe he’s not.
AG
many parents want to raise their children in their faith community. You take your experience as normative – that is a mistake
When did Arthur Gilroy turn into a middle school girl?
Why are you dissing middle school girls?
Great. Another lockstep Massachusetts Dem heard from.
I’d rather be a middle-school girl than a glad-handing gold digger. And I am neither.
I have legitimate objections to Kerry on any number of levels, not the least of which is his cave-in to the 2004 presidential fraud. Gore too in 2000. They can both kiss my royal Irish ass, as can the Democratic Party that accepted those thefts.
AG
William Burns is the highest ranking foreign service officer in the State Department. Appointing him would bring extensive experience and lower the profile of the Secretary of State so that President Obama could front his own foreign policy.
Very Nixonian advice.
Which foreign service officer did Nixon appoint as Secretary of State?
Not that. He appointed William Rogers because he wanted a weak Sec. of State so he and Kissinger could set policy.
And what independent policy course did Hilary Clinton set?
This. Hillary was as much of a team player as anyone could have possibly asked.
Precisely.
What’s the benefit of lowering the profile of Secretary of State? A strong State Department with high visibility is better than a strong Defense Department that has high visibility. It’s puts diplomacy ahead of the military in public perception.
Hillary Clinton was so high-profile that it detracted from the foreign policy being seen as Obama’s foreign policy. And to some extent looked like warmed over Clinton foreign policy.
A high profile for State does not necessarily put diplomacy ahead of the military in the public perception. How the President frames his foreign policy does that.
Even granted this is true, so what? The only possible costs to this perception would be political, and I don’t see any signs that there actually were political costs.
Hillary Clinton was so high-profile that it detracted from the foreign policy being seen as Obama’s foreign policy.
If Barack Obama isn’t concerned about keeping all the glory for himself, why should any of us be?
It did? I didn’t notice that
Obama’s wuss-out on Rice has burned the last of the capital he earned with me for … not being Romney-Ryan.
Obama has one great quality: a sense of humor. Unfortunately he has no spine, no courage and no moral compass. I’m as disgusted as I was after the health care, 2010 bush tax cuts and 2011 debt charade debacles.
bleccccchhh … I’m going to vomit
What makes you think he ever preferred her?
It does look pretty weak, whatever he wanted originally–although the perception is on the Dems as a whole, not just the President; he came out tough early. I’m more disappointed in Rice withdrawing on the premise that the GOP are just too darn mean, but otoh perceptions may actually work against them on this one. I’m willing to be surprised.
It just feels like the GOP are still winning 4 years later by playing the Van Jones card.
You shouldn’t believe everything they say. She has baggage, some of it financial. That is the more likely reason for withdrawing.
.
Pepto-Bismo works pretty good for that.
Nominating Rice would have kept Benghazi and the GOP crafted fiction that Obama screwed-up there and didn’t tell the truth about it on the front pages. Might have retained your good opinion of him, but he would have burned up a lot of political capital with the general public. You may be correct that Obama wimped out again, but I’ll give him this one as politically astute.
Personally, I’m as glad that she’s out of the running as I was with Petraeus’ resignation. In a better or more mature world, both would be rejected but for valid reasons and not the fictions or irrelevant behavior.
Indeed. Glenn Greenwald is being totally disingenuous with his post about her. Like, I agree…let’s have a real debate about the facts surrounding Rice. But when the GOP is vomiting diarrhea out of their mouths, I’m stuck defending her even if I don’t particularly want her in the spot.
I am in total agreement with Greenwald on Susan Rice …
Including:
However, I’ve learned to be very cautious about defending an unacceptable person from an unfair attack because the principle gets lost in the debate. IOW — not all battles should be fought.
Well, again, I’m in general agreement with his post, but it’s not fair to say that just because I’m defending her from unfair attacks means I’m supporting her candidacy for the position. In general, I felt the same way about her as I did Bernanke. Probably perfectly competent at the job, there are better choices, but I’m not going to spend time opposing or supporting the candidacy. The only real reason I “supported” Bernanke is that there were worse choices, and it would have been a death-blow to the administration’s future nominees. But others can get past for Sec. State nod.
On the contrary, ordering Rice to withdraw fuels speculation that there was something to Benghazi after all.
He ordered Rice to withdraw? Link?
Nominees don’t withdraw unless they’re told to. Or do you think high officials want to spend more time with their families?
She was nominated? When did that happen?
she was not nominated – her name was “floated”; she took her name out of consideration before anyone was nominated
Have to disagree. This died as a criticism of Obama in the second debate when he and Crowley smacked down Romney. Issa’s hearing stunt also fell flat.
What tripped her up was her standard style of being overly confident in whatever story she’s pitching. She doesn’t leave herself any wiggle room. Has worked well for her in the past and the style isn’t unique to her — C. Rice and Hillary Clinton have exhibited the same style. The opposition and/or media don’t go after administration public spokespersons for gross errors because they are seen as stating the administration’s position and in foreign affairs, administrations can get away with almost anything. Hence and for example, Hillary could state that the Mubarek regime is stable days before it fell and pay no professional price for that inane statement. On Benghazi, Rice appeared on several TV shows to run some interference for the administration but, and this is key, the administrative narrative of the events had yet to be solidified. It happened to be the narrative that best favored the administration. It was also not one that more senior administration reps chose to present on TV that weekend. Had facts later supported that narrative, Rice would have been well rewarded for being out in front of the story. If not correct, who had her back?
And neither withdrew for the nomination.
You didn’t get what I said. The administrations had Condi’s and Hillary’s backs when they were tasked with speaking the administration’s official line. Susan Rice didn’t present the official WH narrative — it was still in the process of being written — but presented it with the conviction that it was true. So, she didn’t even cover her own back with all the bs hedging that senior admin and members of Congress can do in their sleep. On multiple levels, she was reckless in her handling of those interview assignments. Could have cost Obama the election if he hadn’t earlier covered his own butt by including the words that it was a terrorist attack.
She withdrew her nomination. What was Obama supposed to do? Force her to put her name forward anyway and endure the months of bullshit and screaming after she decides it wasn’t worth it?
Give me a break. You have no idea what went on behind the scenes. Maybe Rice really wasn’t willing to run the gauntlet. Maybe she has some vulnerabilities she didn’t want to have to defend. Who knows.
I remember all the bellyaching when Obama didn’t appoint Liz Warren and look how that turned out.
Was this what all these meetings with Boehner have been about? Trading the tax cuts for another Republican Senate seat?
Yes.
Trading for something, anyway.
Bet on it.
Why did they insist on being alone in at least one meeting?
Dirty work.
Bet on it.
Watch.
Where’s Nixon’s little tape recorder secretary Rosemary Woods when you really need her?
Watch.
AG
As soon as I heard Rice’s name floated for State, and Kerry’s for Defense, I wondered if Obama was deliberately provoking the GOP, so that they could “negotiate him down” to Kerry.
Too eleven-dimension-ey?
I don’t see why they would have objected to Kerry in the first place.
I still can’t figure out why they objected to Rice, for that matter.
A plausible answer to both questions: because they would have blocked whomever he picked.
could be. Susan Rice has other issues. Also, the repubs made fools of themselves re: BenGhazi, a twofer
It is wrong that the career that Susan Rice has built was never on the table. From a quote in Madeline Albright’s book, Madame Secretary “Susan Rice, our dedicated assistant secretary of state for African affairs had more countries in conflict to cope with than any of her colleagues. Although we developed a host of strong relationships with Afrifan leaders, we could not halt or prevent a series of debilitating conflicts.”
Kerry likely developed a good working relationship with Obama when he stood in for Romney in debate prep. Though he’s paid his dues I would argue that his background will be from a political stage rather than Rice’s which reached into on the ground policy conflicts.
OH yes!!!
AG
P.S. I gotta admit…Kerry has shown himself to be a shrewd judge of men.
Right?
I can see it now!!! Maybe he’ll get John Edwards to help him negotiate w/the various hustlers and murderers he will be seeing.
Please.
Alla you “FOUR MORE YEARS!!!” Obama people?
I told you to be careful what you wished for.
Now you’re getting it, and the “four more years” haven’t even started yet.
Good work.
Giordano on Kerry.
I would love to know Al’s take on Kerry, but I can’t get to it without Facebook. I would greatly appreciate it if you could share some of what he said or could summarize his position.
FaceBook is telling me the post isn’t there anymore.