Report: Obama Picks Kerry For Next Secretary Of State

[kpete]

Source: CBS Boston

BOSTON (CBS) – President Obama has picked Sen. John Kerry as the next secretary of state, according to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times.

Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed reports New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez will replace Kerry as chairman of the senate foreign relations committee.

Sen. Kerry became the presumed frontrunner for the position after U.N. ambassador Susan Rice officially withdrew her name from consideration.

....................

If Kerry is confirmed, a special election will be held in Massachusetts to replace him in the senate.

Read more: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/12/15/report-obama-picks-kerry-for-next-secretary-of-state/

[cyclezealot]

1. Obama will regret this should he choose the Next supreme court justice.

for some strange reason Mass residents love scottie Brown.. Likely he'll crawl his way back into the Senate. Mass law says a special election will need be held.. Can you imagine Warren/Brown representing Massachusetts amicably.
And, Scott Brown recently said, Scalia is his favorite Supreme Court Justice.

[brooklynite]

72. What do the two have to do with each other?

Dems have 55 votes today; if Brown re-takes MA, they still have more votes than before the election.

[cyclezealot]

117. to block the goobers the dems need 61 votes.

to appoint any real progressive, which the court sadly needs, since it has none.. we'll need every vote possible.

[brooklynite]

123. ...which they don't have today; again no difference...

...and also irrelevant if Reid passes filibuster reform.

[hlthe2b]

2. Mixed feelings, though Kerry will be good. I hope the rumors re: Vicky Kennedy appointment

are true.

But, I can not help but be pissed at how the RW demonized Susan Rice. They need to pay a price for that.

[Tippy]

3. Hate the fact we will probably lose Kerry's Senate Seat....

But he will do a bang up job....

[Kahuna]

33. Yep! The risk of brown getting his seat is unfortunate. However, Kerry will be an EXCELLENT

SoS! Go, Big John, go!

[MBS]

119. " " " n/t

[CTyankee]

36. Not so sure. I will bet you anything that the WH has focus grouped possible

replacements for Kerry's seat and how they would do up against Brown in a special election. I will bet they are fairly sure that there is a candidate who can beat Brown will run and win. I'd be very surprised if this thing hadn't been strategized out...no way does the WH want to lose Kerry's Senate seat with this pick...

[Joe Bacon]

114. And Adelson will pour $50 million into the state for Scott Brown.

This is a dumb move that plays into the GOP hands.

[CTyankee]

116. I don't think I'd use Adelson as a winning example here. LOL. He didn't do so well with

his inordinate amount of money that he put toward Romney, did he?

[malibea]

151. And?

And what exactly does this mean? Nothing! Adelson can pour all the millions he wants into the race, but if the people don't want Adelson's choice, then it doesn't mean spit!

[MBS]

120. yup, agreed. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

152. I hope you are right

[woo me with science]

43. Bang bang.

Kerry voted for the war in Iraq.

And we likely lose a Democratic seat.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=337938

It's a win-win for the corporate team, and brilliant as hell.

[plethoro]

79. Yep. And if you're keeping track, that was the

third mistake in a little over a month. We have the Rice kind-of-maybe, who knows--capitulation; the offer to cut corporate tax rates to 28%; and now the Kerry pick. Wonder if the fourth will be the change to a chained CPI for Social Security? I just wish if the Tigers were going to come at night, they weren't our tigers. I am not surprised at all.

[woo me with science]

86. Yep.

Should probably put quote marks around the word, "mistake."

[plethoro]

89. I didn't want to appear cynical.....I

am really depressed about the shooting, so maybe I shouldn't even be posting at all. Have a nice day.

[woo me with science]

96. It's been a terrible, terrible week.

I didn't mean for my post to sound critical of you in any way. Just the opposite. I really appreciated your spot-on examples of the real problem we face, which is why I wanted to give it the thumbs up. My comment about the quotes was just an expression of my own strong feeling that we need to be clear about what corporatism is doing within our party, even at the risk of sounding cynical, because we can't fix a problem we are hesitant to admit exists.

Peace to you.

[KittyWampus]

131. Actually, we probably won't lose a Democratic seat. LOL!

[MBS]

104. " " " "n/t

[blm]

4. Rice was never 1st pick. McCain&Co and RW mediawhores had their dog and pony show anyway.

Kerry had been quietly performing diplomatic missions for Obama and State Dept for this entire first term. That so many Dems are unaware of this is a testament to the success of Kerry's quiet diplomacy.

[patrice]

6. They phuked Rice and Obama got blamed for it, just look at DU; they got what they wanted. nt

[JDPriestly]

10. Kerry is great, one of my favorites. You should have seen how hard I worked for him in 2004.

He would have made a great, great president. But we really need him in the Senate right now, and the thought that Scott Brown gets another shot at that Senate seat makes me ill.

[YvonneCa]

20. That's what I think, too. I wish ...

...people would pay more attention... John Kerry will make an EXCELLENT SOS.

[onehandle]

5. Senator Pink Leather Shorts returns. nt

[freshwest]

55. Is this a Scott Brown or John Kerry reference? Never heard it.

[karynnj]

74. In his autobiography, Brown spoke of showing up for his first date with his wife

in pink leather shorts that he was allowed to keep after he wore them modelling.

From all the photos of a young John Kerry, that does not seem to be his style.

[freshwest]

80. Thanks, I didn't know about Brown's date. And I agree, not Kerry's style.

[allrevvedup]

60. Yes, do please share.

Dying to hear all about it.

[The Stranger]

7. If John Kerry gave a shit about us, why would he risk losing the Senate seat just to add another

row to his pathetic and past-dated little resume?

[underpants]

8. I agree- he should stay in the Senate.

I don't like this at all.

[blm]

12. Why the weak knees, Strange? BTW - You are welcome to name ONE lawmaker who has effected

this nation's historic record more positively than Kerry has the last 40 years.

Investigated and exposed IranContra, BCCI, S&L scandal, and CIA drugrunning. I suppose you prefer Dems who sided with the coverups, eh, Strange?

[The Stranger]

15. He did all of those things in the Senate.

And are you trying to bait me with the little "weak knees" comment and the "eh, Strange?"

Try to do better.

[blm]

27. Well, you say Kerry's work has been 'pathetic' and I'm holding you accountable for your claim.

Simple, really, Strange (short for The Stranger). And the 'weak knees' refers specifically to your concern that Mass Dems will be as inattentive in 2014 as they were in 2010. I don't think that will happen. I trust Mass Dems learned from their previous mistake.

You are still welcome to give us the details on any lawmaker of the last 40 years who has effected this nation's actual historic record more positively than Kerry.

[The Stranger]

139. He lost a Presidential election he should have won.

During that campaign, he was afraid to call out Chimp for invading a nation looking for "weapons of mass destruction" that did not exist. It was pathetic.

The question isn't whether Mass Dems "will be as inattentive in 2014 as they were in 2010," the question is why in the fuck would we take that chance when we don't have to? You can expect the Super PACs to be hauling money into the Massachusetts election by the truckload. Wake the fuck up.

And his 40 years as a lawmaker actually supports his STAYING IN THE SENATE where, according to you, he has been the greatest lawmaker in the last 40 years.

[blm]

143. You are a poor student of history if that is what you actually think.

The Democrats will NOT allow that seat to be lost to Brown. They have learned.

[The Stranger]

145. You seem unable to forego calling me names.

I have "weak knees" and, now, I'm "a poor student of history." This kind of shit should get an alert.

Look, the GOP wants Kerry for Secretary of State SOLELY to have another shot at a seat in a state where they had one in recent memory. John Kerry should look at this and take his name out of the running.

There will be other opportunities for him where we will not have to risk losing a Senate seat.

[blm]

147. Baloney. And the 'weak knees' referred specifically to your excessive fearfulness.

.

[The Stranger]

158. You're little posting on here is really pathetic.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/mass-poll-scott-brown-for-john-kerry-seat-85352.html?hp=r3

Forty-seven percent of registered voters would vote for Brown compared with 39 percent who would vote for a generic Democrat. Against many of the most talked-about Democratic candidates, Brown holds big leads. He tops Rep. Michael Capuano, 47 percent to 28 percent; has a 48 percent to 30 percent lead over Rep. Ed Markey; and holds a whopping 51 percent to 24 percent lead over Rep. Stephen Lynch. And his lead over former Rep. Marty Meehan is 49 percent to 30 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/mass-poll-scott-brown-for-john-kerry-seat-85352.html#ixzz2FcPYduMl

[blm]

162. WOW - Did you try to discourage Warren when polls showed Brown unbeatable for 2012, too?

YOUR postings are mewlings designed to promote fearfulness. You're being silly.

[MBS]

105. thank you, blm n/t

[karynnj]

18. Gee I am sure this would convince Senator Kerry

Pathetic and past dated?? There are very few Americans, in either party, with stronger public service - often doing what is right, rather than what is popular or career resume building. Not to mention, if he asked by Obama to be the top diplomat, a very tough job that with the right person could make the world a little safer, I don't think he should refuse.

He spoke in 2009 of the advantages of SOS vs the Senate position he had and - though he was honest about wanting the SOS, he listed many things that were advantages of what he had - including retaining his independence and being able to work on many issues, not just foreign policy.

As to the MA seat, I doubt the Democrats would be as easily blindsided as they were in 2010. The main argument of 2012 seemed to be that Warren would be a vote they could count on anyways being there rather than sometimes there. (The sometimes there turns Brown's bipartisan claim into a negative.) Even if Brown were to win, he would be there for a half year less than last time before having to face reelection in 2014, where the argument of which party controls Congress becomes very strong.

[The Stranger]

140. See post #139

Why would we let Brown into the Senate (again) "for half a year or less" WHEN WE DON'T HAVE TO?

[karynnj]

146. You completely miss the point - as you did BLM's

Not to mention, it is no sure thing that Brown gets back in - he still has the problem of his voting record.

[The Stranger]

159. You just don't get it, do you?

Forty-seven percent of registered voters would vote for Brown compared with 39 percent who would vote for a generic Democrat. Against many of the most talked-about Democratic candidates, Brown holds big leads. He tops Rep. Michael Capuano, 47 percent to 28 percent; has a 48 percent to 30 percent lead over Rep. Ed Markey; and holds a whopping 51 percent to 24 percent lead over Rep. Stephen Lynch. And his lead over former Rep. Marty Meehan is 49 percent to 30 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/mass-poll-scott-brown-for-john-kerry-seat-85352.html#ixzz2FcPYduMl

[blm]

161. Politico and polls that also pushed the idea that Brown was unbeatable in 2012, too.

.

[karynnj]

165. Do you remember the 2011 and early 2012 polls?

This poll might include many people who want Kerry to be their senator voting for Brown.

[YvonneCa]

22. That's pretty...

...small.

[The Stranger]

141. "Small" of Kerry to put his own desires over what's best for the party?

[YvonneCa]

148. I highly doubt that is his motivation. I suggest...

...doing some research on his efforts to turn the country around...2004 and beyond. Start here:

http://www.cfr.org/defensehomeland-security/real-security-post-911-world-remarks-senator-john-kerry/p9390

(audio)


Continue here:

http://www.cfr.org/search/?Ntt=kerry+john&submit.x=12&submit.y=14


What you'll find is his view of US national security as it is related to energy, the environment and how we deal with other nations around the world. Opposite of GWB policies.

Don't forget the START Treaty. Changes in how US deals with the Middle East...

Get back to me...

[The Stranger]

160. Okay, I'm getting back to you.

Forty-seven percent of registered voters would vote for Brown compared with 39 percent who would vote for a generic Democrat. Against many of the most talked-about Democratic candidates, Brown holds big leads. He tops Rep. Michael Capuano, 47 percent to 28 percent; has a 48 percent to 30 percent lead over Rep. Ed Markey; and holds a whopping 51 percent to 24 percent lead over Rep. Stephen Lynch. And his lead over former Rep. Marty Meehan is 49 percent to 30 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/mass-poll-scott-brown-for-john-kerry-seat-85352.html#ixzz2FcPYduMl

[blm]

163. OMG! *knees shaking* Politico is saying Brown's unbeatable.....just like they did in 2011 and 2012.

OMG! Whatever shall we do?

[YvonneCa]

164. I do understand the importance of retaining...

...as many Dem Senate seats as possible. I also see, and value greatly, Senator Kerry's contributions...both as a Senator representing his state and in his role on the SFRC. I will feel that loss no matter whether a Dem gets his seat or not.

I just think we needed his voice on critical issues as President in 2004. Didn't happen. But his voice is still needed...and I think valued by many, including President Obama. Being confirmed to the cabinet as SOS will elevate, and amplify, that voice...on all those critical issues that face our country discussed in the CFR speeches. I look forward to that discussion for our whole country. It's a debate we need to have.

I know his Senate replacement is important to Massachusetts' citizens, as it should be. I just have faith that they will make a good decision when the time comes. IMHO, their worries about replacing Kerry are no reason...and pale in comparison to... the advantages of having John Kerry in the leadership role the country needs him to take on.

And I do thank you for getting back to me.

[Fearless]

31. If you gave a shit about John Kerry

Would you speak about him that way?

[The Stranger]

142. I don't know if I give a shit about Kerry or not.

That's really not the question. Although I don't know him personally, I'm sure he's a great guy.

I'm more concerned about a U.S. Senate seat.

[KittyWampus]

132. He has served in the Senate for 28 years. He has every right to leave politics and become SoS

or retire, if that's what he wants.

[The Stranger]

144. The problem is that it could cost us a U.S. Senate seat when every single vote there counts

far more than it ever has.

The Republicans want Kerry for Secretary of State SOLELY because they want another shot at a U.S. Senate seat where they won less than 3 years ago.

Come on.

[JDPriestly]

9. I know John Kerry wants the job, and I know he will be really great because he is extremely

well qualified for it, but if Scott Brown takes that seat, Obama is to blame.

I think this is a big mistake and that Kerry should turn it down. The future of the country depends on Kerry staying in the Senate in my opinion. Kerry is a great peacemaker, and that is why we need him in the Senate.

[blm]

13. Do you really believe Mass Dems will be as inattentive in 2014 as they were in 2010?

Fer Chrissakes, JD, Mass isn't Mississippi.

[DRiggs]

47. That's right, Idaho is now the new Mississippi!

I am trusting that big O has a plan on replacing Kerry.

[Drunken Irishman]

101. It won't be in 2014 ... won't there be a special election next few months?

That's how it worked when Kennedy died ... they have to hold the special election within 145-160 days after the seat has been vacated. We're not going to get a real midterm election here...this race will be decided in early 2013.

[YvonneCa]

23. 'Yes, We Can."

Where's the confidence?

[Fearless]

26. He will not win.

[Kahuna]

34. I think MA Dems will be to blame, not Obama. nt

[phleshdef]

11. Love the cowardice in this thread. We can hold his damn seat people. Get with it.

Jesus god. If we can't hold a seat in blue, blue Massachusettes, we don't deserve it. Brown only got in there in the first place because we ran an awul candidate that had no clue how to campaign. And we just TOOK that seat AWAY FROM HIM a month or so ago. What the hell is wrong with you people? You aren't thinking clearly.

[YvonneCa]

25. Thank you! We're supposed to be...

...the 'Yes, We Can' party. A little confidence is in order here, people!

[MBS]

106. + 1000 n/t

[malibea]

154. I'm with you!

Hey buddy, I agree with you. People seem to be afraid of their own shadows, and show no guts at all!

Come on. As Judge Joe Brown says, "MAN UP!" It is time for balls to the walls here, Geezus Christ. Show some gumption!:

[NNguyenMD]

14. Congratulations Sen. Kerry

I think our New England friends deserve more credit than they get. 2012 is not 2010, where the Tea Party was at its peak of popularity, and Scott Brown took advantage of a weakened Democratic Party struggling to get the ACA passed.

This will be a much different special election, and although Brown has name recognition and money, it is by not in the bag. Massachusetts will elect a Dem candidate over Scott Brown, if given a strong principled candidate like elected Elizabeth Warren.

[YvonneCa]

29. I agree. Congratulations...

...Senator Kerry.

[AndyTiedye]

48. It Will be 2013, Another Special Election Like they Had in 2009

Even Elisabeth Warren barely beat Brown during an Obama landslide.
We don't have anybody else that good, and it will be a special election in an off year. Again.
The superpacs won't have anything else to spend money on.

[Arkana]

156. This is untrue. 8 percentage points is not "barely".

It's not Obama's margin, true--but it's damn impressive considering Warren was a first-timer in politics and she beat a sitting Senator.

And the Mass bench for Democrats is VERY deep. Republicans cannot say the same:

1) Scott Brown, who just lost his Senate seat
2) Richard Tisei, who couldn't beat a guy embroiled in a MASSIVE corruption scandal
3) Charlie Baker, who couldn't win in a Republican wave year

It's the Hall of Also-Rans and Losers.

[John2]

16. Maybe Warren

will campaign against this guy. He is still the same guy that loss to her, and her supporters did disagree with his positions. All the next candidate needs to do is point that out to everyone that voted for her. The same reasons apply and why he loss. If Massachusetts vote him back in right after he loss, it would make no sense.

[davidpdx]

97. Having Warren out there would be a good idea

But it seems to me Warren ran a pretty positive campaign. I would think if she did it would be based on the positives of the candidate who is put against Brown (if he runs).

As for the OP (because I'm too lazy to make a second post) I am also a little leery of Kerry leaving the Senate seat open. I think he'll do a great job as SOS, but Obama and the party need to put weight behind whoever is the candidate since the opening was created as a result of Obama's pick of Kerry.

[louis-t]

17. I am curious to see how many repugs who LOVE Kerry now

for SOS will vote against him when asked.

[karynnj]

19. I suspect that most of the ones who said they preferred him will

McCain in 2000 cited Kerry when asked to name a Democrat he respected on foreign policy. Lindsey Graham had a large amount of praise for all Kerry dealt with the climate change legislation. Susan Collins worked with Kerry recently on an amendment that supported women soldiers.

There will be some who will vote against him - just as there were some who voted against Hillary Clinton when there was no reasonable reason to do so. I doubt any Democrat will vote against him.

[hlthe2b]

21. Nah, they won't ... The entire reason for supporting him is to gain a chance at Senate seat

They got their chance and what they wanted in their ugly attack on Susan Rice.

[karynnj]

44. Not really - almost any Senator nominated gets lots of votes from the other side

there are people on the other side who like him - though of course they would support a Republican voting against him. This is different though.

[hlthe2b]

46. I'm saying he won't be opposed by many if any REPUGS. I can't tell if you are disagreeing with that

or perhaps meant your reply to someone else?

[karynnj]

73. Not disagreeing with little opposition - disagreeing that it is just the opportunity to get Brown

It is almost always easy to get a sitting Senator confirmed due the the fact that they tend to vote for their peers. Additionally, Kerry has worked well, especially on foreign policy, with many Republicans and has the respect- even if no affection in some cases - of many of them. If you looked back at the coverage of the START committee, you will see that his actions and leadership on that was praised highly by many Republicans..

I suspect that some of the tea party guys might try to bring up the swiftboat stuff, but I doubt they could get any resonance in the Senate

[Blasphemer]

68. He will be easily confirmed.

They all want to be easily confirmed if they wind up in the same position.

[Fearless]

24. Congratulations!

Now let's beat Scott Brown again!

[Kahuna]

35. Right answer!

[Fearless]

115. Absolutely!

Shouldn't be too hard to get the Democratic wheels rolling again. We just did it after all!

[humblebum]

28. "President" Kerry will do a great job. nt

[YvonneCa]

30. ...

...I'm with you on that. President Kerry will be FANTASTIC!

[plethoro]

32. Bad move, imo.............nft

dddddd

[Lionessa]

37. Really? Not only does Rice give to the nutjobs, then Obama obeys them and

nominates Kerry who is exactly who the Repubs asked for?

Geez I'm tired of the Repubs running the president. When will he learn, after they now turn against Kerry during the nominating process?

Methinks he'll never learn. He talks and speechifies great. His actions leave a ton of concerns.

[bigdarryl]

38. I'm not filling Kerry as SOS the man is 70 years old that job need to be given to

a younger person.Look what Hillary has gone through she said she is tired and she's younger than Kerry

[karynnj]

75. Kerry is 69 and at least as fit as HRC was when she started

Kerry rode the Pan Mass challenge's first day 111 mile bike ride - and with a good time - beating out Scott Brown...again.

Kerry handled the travel and duress of the the primary campaign in 2004 better than RC did in 2008 - and that was less than a year after he was treated for cancer.

[woo me with science]

39. Perhaps the administration is not really all that into having progressive majorities in Congress.

We have seen this DLC/Third Way/corporate game before from our party. There are advantages for corporatists on both sides of the aisle in having a close balance of power that is more easily manipulated than a solid lead on either side.


Let's review:

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

[ProSense]

40. Your comment makes no sense

You appear to be saying Kerry is a progressive and the Senate will be less progressive because of this nomination.

Isn't it good that the administration appointed a progressive as SOS?

[karynnj]

76. Kerry was liberal and progressive enough that Ted Kennedy went out of his way

to support him energetically in the primaries and to back him for 2008 - before Kerry himself was convinced it was a good idea.

[KamaAina]

41. Scott Brown sez:

[woo me with science]

42. And all his corporate buddies, too. nt

[KittyWampus]

133. LOL! His record precedes him. He won't win if Dems run a decent candidate.

[politicasista]

45. Another positive Kerry thread turned into a flamewar

Wish him the best.

Not concern trolling here, but wondering how this is going to play out with the Rice supporters who are angry at him. (IDK, it just doesn't seem like a good look). Not to mention the people of MA that supported him all these years, especially those needing his voice on the disabilities treaty, climate change.

Hope it's best for him and his family. It's a very demanding job. (Wishing HRC a speedy recovery)

[blm]

50. Still putting up your 'concerns' I see. Typical of you.

You can't change your spots enough to fool some of us.

[politicasista]

56. Read Twitter and you will understand n/t

[blm]

63. You repeating BS doesn't impress me. Your 'concerns' are always the same.

.

[politicasista]

65. And also read the Grio and

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Roland Martin and Donna Brazille's Twitter accounts. They are furious at what happened.

This is what I saw. People can downplay it all they want, but it is a issue.

[blm]

81. Tuff - they got it wrong and refuse to admit it. Rice was NEVER Obama's 1st pick.

They bought into the rumors and bought into McCain&Co's dog and pony show. And you know exactly what I mean when I note your 'concern' postings. You never fooled me one bit.

[politicasista]

82. As I said, I wish Kerry the best.

I don't want to be piled on anymore, so will not further comment on this.

To those that have been sticking up for Senator Kerry, not just in this thread, but out there in social media land, poli thanks you.

Try telling all that to those folks who thought Rice was his first, if not the best choice. Try telling that to people who think McCain and the GOP "won" and is picking Obama's cabinet. Defend him proudly, especially against those that view him with skepticism/suspicion. He is going to need that. Peace.

[karynnj]

91. The GRIO link actually said Kerry was Obama's choice - not Rice something I haven't .

seen elsewhere. As to Donna Brazille, I think her nose was out of joint in 2004 as she was not part of the Kerry team. Obviously, there are people who wanted Rice in that position and they dominated the discussion. There are also many, who were neutral or wanted Kerry, who were appalled at the Benghazi attacks. However, Obama DID take an unprecedented step in sending the acting CIA head out with Rice.

Other attacks were vaguer - how could the President or anyone else defend her on the whisper campaign of her temperament and abrasiveness. What some - including Obama AND Kerry did, was to address it obliquely in speaking of her excellence in the positions she had.

It would make as much sense for me to be angry with Obama for picking Rice over Kerry. Maybe even more, as this really is his last shot at getting that job. In addition, there are career diplomats , on record, saying Kerry is as good a diplomat as any they have seen in their life. That means something - and I did not see the same thing for Rice, who would have been MORE likely as a career diplomat to have career diplomats say that. The fact is that she was in no way more deserving.

[politicasista]

110. Ok makes sense n/t

[allrevvedup]

64. It would be nice if Rice could run for his senate seat

or get some equally worthy appointment. I think your concerns are valid. The optics aren't the best but I think Obama can find a way to make everyone come out a winner. And I'd * really * like to see Kerry as Defense Secretary. I don't think anyone else has the wherewithal to stand up to the bomb Iran crowed.

[politicasista]

66. True,

Not going to comment anymore. Too toxic right now. Peace.

[allrevvedup]

71. oops I meant SoS.

I'd be happy with either to be honest, but if Kerry wants SoS why not Rice as Sec of Defense? The word is Panetta wants to retire. Just a thought, but I have no doubt that Obama can make it turn out well if he wants to, and I think he does.

[politicasista]

84. He can, but

IDK if he can convince people elsewhere, hence the comments in threads on this story.


http://thegrio.com/2012/12/14/the-war-against-susan-rice-took-a-toll-on-gop/

[karynnj]

87. Seeing that you respect this source, read this paragraph

"It was a bad day for the Obama administration, which now, even as it had planned to pick Senator John Kerry anyway, appears to have lost a fight with a gaggle of sniping Senators before they even had a chance to nominate anyone to replace the popular Hillary Clinton at State."

What this tells me is that Rice, possibly to help Obama or to save face, took her name out AFTER Obama had decided, but not announced that he was choosing Kerry. (the sentence would not have this meaning if the "as" were a "if".

As to Secretary of Defense, Kerry was not a particularly good fit, but Rice is not really a fit at all. She has no military experience or contact in prior jobs with the more prosaic defense issues (like budgets). Not to mention, that position needs to be approved by the Senate and there is LESS reason to vote for her on that. However, she could remain as UN Secretary or NSA is a WH post and does not need confirmation.

[politicasista]

94. The Grio is a popular

website for the AA community. Even though it's from the WaPo and MSNBC, a lot of folks get their news there and from AA pundits (hence the comments in the article).

These are Dems that are making these comments. It's not about foreign policy. It became about a highly qualified black woman who got shafted out of high-profile cabinet spot by white men/GOPers, in favor of a white man so that another GOPer can get back in the Senate. It is a race and gender war, and the Senator is being perceived as one of the enemies, which is unfortunate because he has strong FP creds.

People think I am being a concern troll, but it is hard not to ignore that issue.

[karynnj]

102. In that case, read the paragraph

It says that given the 2 under consideration, Obama intended to choose Kerry.

To me, as a known Kerry partisan, I see that Rice and her allies got behind a media effort to make her inevitable. If you look back, EVERY story saying she was the number 1 choice goes back o the WP. Kerry was atypically quiet - even on foreign policy issues other than the treaty. In a way that made her a bigger target for the Republicans, If there is anything the AA population should question it is why she was used as the face of the administration on the problematic Sunday shows. Was it Rice being ambitious or the WH making her the designated scapegoat?

How you answer that determines if you blame Obama? Kerry had no involvement here, though he could have been the one to speak in the Sunday shows and from all prior exposures, he is far better at not saying anything that could later be called untrue. Oddly, that also demonstrates how Kerry's political skills are an advantage. Remember that with little party support and even less media support he won the nomination in 2004. Throw in that few question his temperament or diplomatic skills.

The fact is that Obama had two excellent, but very different choices. What strikes me as weird in the AA comments is that they argue that as she was fully qualified, she should have gotten it and otherwise it is an old boys' network. This ignores that Senator Kerry is a completely qualified, experienced alternative. To reject Kerry for being white and male is JUST as wrong as rejecting her for being black and female.

[politicasista]

109. Went back and re-read it

A lot of folks were curious as to why they weren't attacking Hillary, since she is the sitting SOS. It's a sensitive pattern that started with AG Holder, then the resignations of Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, now the withdrawal of Rice. McCain, Graham, etc. hasn't attacked Gehitner, Duncan, or Panetta, which is interesting.

I don't disagree with what you have said. Just think that the Senator is going to have a lot to prove when he does have to prove anything.

[karynnj]

130. the reason is where at least the first two were on the political spectrum

First of, Kerry does not have to PROVE anything to anyone - except the Senate, which seems to have pretty genuine respect for him. I assume that some on the right will use the opportunity of the SFRC hearing to try to embarrass him, but there is nothing in his life that has been lived in public since he was 27 that he has not been honest about.

He will be leaving politics and instead of having to answer to the voters of the state of Massachusetts, he will have one boss, President Obama. The only other thing he needs to answer to is the same thing he has always answered to -- his conscience.

Geitner was opposed by the LEFT, because he was one of the key people behind TARP and the other measures taken to avoid a financial crash in 2008. Duncan is NOT a favorite of the teachers' union because he is pro vouchers and pro charter school. As to Panetta, I know less about him other than that he was a Clinton chief of staff - again suggesting he is a centrist.

Van Jones was one of the few people really to the left Obama picked. Obama and the Democrats should have at least waited to get the story on Sherrod. I really don't think they were attacked because they were black. As to Holder, like Rice, he was involved in the bogus scandal the Republicans wanted to blow up into a big story. With Holder, it was fast and furious - on which he did NOTHING wrong. With Rice, it was Benghazi Sunday morning comments that were inaccurate - but not lies as they were what she was told.

With Rice, she is clearly brilliant, however, academic brilliance is not the key trait needed for this. Diplomatic skills and the ability to build relationships with people you don't like. On that, Kerry excels, while she really seems at best average for people who are doing the things she is doing. The assumption that she was the better choice and the choice Obama should and would make was always rather flaky. Even the accounts that suggested it gave her top plus as the fact that she is close to Obama.

[politicasista]

153. True n/t

[ieoeja]

157. Sherrod was obviously attacked because she was Black.

They claimed she refused to help White farmers. How could that not be an attack on her as African-American?

[Kingofalldems]

49. Here come the swiftboaters and their Fox news allies.

[LeftInTX]

54. I don't think so

The R senators want him. They know him and have worked with him.

They all know the swiftboat thing was campaign nonsense.
Kerry ain't running for president.

[allrevvedup]

59. Attack of the Deaniacs would be my guess.

Some folks just can't get past that 2004 primary. Quite a few here from the looks of it and that's a shame.

[Kingofalldems]

77. No, I was talking about a filthy repub group

out of Texas.

[allrevvedup]

78. "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth formally disbanded

and ceased all operations on May 31, 2008."

http://www.swiftvets.com/

That group? They were eventually exposed and discredited as liars is my recollection. Do you really think they're going regroup and launch another ad campaign just to oppose this nomination?

[Kingofalldems]

83. Repubs lie about everything and they have

lots of money. So yes it's very possible.

[karynnj]

88. Huge difference this time - only 99 people can vote

and they all know Kerry well. The lies worked with people who did not know him and who had no understanding for the fact that young 25 year old Kerry could not and did not give himself medals.

[Kingofalldems]

90. I'm not saying they can stop Kerry

but will not be surprised if they throw mud in order to weaken him somehow.

[karynnj]

98. Don't doubt it, but if they do - it backfires when he is easily confirmed

ie they hear the charges and rejected them. Not saying it will not be annoying. Kerry has always spoken honestly about everything - so if anything Kerry can respond publicly to any question asked.

[allrevvedup]

93. Beat me to it!

[allrevvedup]

92. Yes, but this is a Senate confirmation,

and SBVT was pitched to under-informed swing voters. It was all innuendo and sneering southern accents. I don't think they'd get any bang for their buck if they resuscitated that gang of thieves. Here's one of their ad scripts which I can recall from back in the day:

Announcer: They served their country with courage and distinction. They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam.

Announcer: They’re his entire chain of command, most of the officers in Kerry’s unit. Even the gunner from his own boat.

Announcer: And they’re the men who spent years in North Vietnamese prison camps.

Announcer: Tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of. . . of being war criminals.

Announcer: They were also decorated. Many very highly. But they kept their medals.

Announcer: Today they are teachers, farmers, businessman, ministers, and community leaders. And of course, fathers and grandfathers.

Announcer: With nothing to gain for themselves, except the satisfaction that comes with telling the truth, they have come forward to talk about the John Kerry they know.

Announcer: Because to them honesty and character still matters. . . especially in a time of war.

Announcer: Swift Vets and POW’s for Truth are responsible for the content of this advertisement.

http://www.swiftvets.com/theyservedscript.html

Basically there's no there there. Seriously, I don't think we have to worry about SBVT and its ilk at this juncture.

[democrattotheend]

113. I was a hardcore Deaniac in 2004

And I have been a strong supporter of Kerry for Secretary of State since 2008.

Reliving the 2004 primary fights is even stupider than the people who still want to fight about Clinton/Obama.

Kerry has redeemed himself in my eyes by helping to lead the charge to defund the Iraq War, and by being such a strong advocate for Obama since he took a chance on him the day after the New Hampshire primary in 2008. He has a long and distinguished career with expertise in foreign policy, and he has earned the SOS job.

[MessiahRp]

62. You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Kerry is a terrific choice and we're going to beat Scott Brown again because he outed himself as a classless racist idiot in the last election. If John Kerry, a fairly progressive Senator, is a bad call to you, why the fuck would you ever have voted for Obama in the first place?

[MBS]

122. " " " " " n/t

[woo me with science]

85. The corporatists are very good at what they do.

Kerry voted for the war in Iraq.

And we likely lose a Democratic seat.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=337938

[bluestateguy]

53. The legislature passed a special law banning Martha Coakley from running for Senate

OK, no they can't do that.

[David__77]

57. I don't like a senator being chosen, but I hope it will change the state dept. for the better.

Maybe Kerry will be less interventionist.

[indypaul]

58. Loss of a much needed Senate seat

will be the end result of this appointment. Should have asked
John Huntsman or Richard Lugar to serve and let the right-wing
Senators chew on that one.

[allrevvedup]

61. Because an incumbent defeated by a freshman in November

is going to come roaring back? Really? When did MA become a swing state, anyway?

[Little Star]

67. Do you live here?

[allrevvedup]

69. Let me guess,

you have an uncontrollable compulsion to re-elect Scott Brown? Okay. If Kerry was my Senator I'd be delighted to see him finally moving on to bigger things, even if it means another special election. If you're compelled to vote in Brown again, fine, but I have a higher opinion of your state than you do.

[Little Star]

70. Yep. That's what I thought.

[allrevvedup]

95. You don't seem to have much faith in MA

or in Kerry. Are you sure this isn't about 2004?

[Little Star]

99. Are you bananas? Kerry has been my senator for a long, long time...

I have plenty of faith in him. What I don't have faith in is that my state will absolutely NOT elect Brown AGAIN. I live here and have since childhood. I have feet on the ground here and I know for a fact that there is a very fair chance for Brown to win Kerry's seat.

Just because Elizabeth won the last election does not mean people here don't like Brown. They do like him and many voiced how bad they felt voting against him. We have a lot of independent voters here.

I know how risky this is because I live my life here.

[allrevvedup]

100. Okay it's risky. Is it fair to ask Kerry to die in office

because there's a popular GOP candidate on the loose? And hasn't Brown racked up enough of a record for someone to run against? It's not like he's a newly minted pol, which, thinking of Arnold in California, can be a problem yes. But Arnold and Brown got themselves elected with help from a totally corrupt GOP administration which thankfully is out of power now.

There's really no one who could take on Brown?

[Little Star]

108. Brown actually got himself elected in great part due to the....

Boston media. His wife, Gayle Huff, is part of their elite club. They sold him big time. After he lost to Elizabeth they were still singing his 'everyday man' praises. Also, like I said we have a lot of independents here and Brown was/is well liked. There is something about his demeanor that makes people like him as a person. Sad to say there are many who turn a blind eye to his voting record.

Sure there are good people who are qualified to take him on. The fear for many of us is can any one of them beat him.

It is what it is now, so I guess we'll all find out together. Please keep your fingers crossed along with me and many other residents in this great state.

[allrevvedup]

111. Will do. Massachusetts has turned out some great politicians.

John Hancock, John Adams, Daniel Webster, Henry Cabot Lodge, Paul Tsongas, the Kennedys of course, now John Kerry, and let's not forget Michael Dukakis, who I not only voted for but whose hand I shook when he gave a speech at my college. So yeah I'll be rooting for you!

[KittyWampus]

134. Do YOU live in MA? Cause if you did you'd remember the ONLY reason Brown won in the 1st

place was because Coakley was a miserable failure as a candidate who went for a WEEK'S vacation during campaign season.

Or maybe you just moved to MA and have no knowledge of how Brown got elected.

[Thrill]

103. Not a surprise. Kerry wanted it the last time

I think he feels he wants to be something more than just a Senator.

[Beacool]

107. Not an unexpected choice.

Kerry was the expected choice in 2008 and Obama surprised everyone when he chose Hillary.

[railsback]

112. People giving Brown too much credit

He ran a juvenile campaign. He lost to someone who never ran a campaign before, while spending millions upon millions of Koch supplied funds. AND, the big kicker, the NRA supports Brown. That's not going to play well at all up there.

[machI]

118. Senator Kerry will bring the United States to a leadership position on Climate Change

http://www.govexec.com/management/2012/12/secretary-john-kerry-would-elevate-climate-issues/60091/

“No senator since Al Gore knows as much about the science and diplomacy of climate change as Kerry,” said David Goldwyn, an international energy consultant who served as Clinton’s special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs. “He would not only put climate change in the top five issues he raises with every country, but he would probably rethink our entire diplomatic approach to the issue.”

Kerry could also have a strong impact on climate policy as Defense secretary given the Pentagon’s emergence as a leading force in the Obama administration on energy and climate issues.

“He has a lot of gravitas on national security. He’s made that a touchstone of his career,” said Paul Clarke, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who served on the National Security Council staff in both the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, and is now a senior adviser at the Truman National Security Project. “If he talks about the issue of climate change as a national-security issue, he will be taken seriously.”

Kerry has been engaged with climate policy since he attended the first major U.N. climate summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. He was coauthor, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., of sweeping legislation that would have capped U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, although the bill fell apart before making it to the Senate floor. In 2007 he and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, coauthored a book, This Moment on Earth: Today’s New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future.

Kerry will put us back in the lead for controlling Climate Change. Getting a reduction in CO2 emissions can do nothing but help everyone.

[MBS]

121. YES!

Thank you for your post-- He's been a consistent voice for the environment for his entire career. And, even more importantly, he's always been consistent about connecting the dots: between environmental health and economic health, between environmental issues and national security. I have high hopes that he will be able to make something happen as SoS. Certainly, I have no doubt that he will make global environmental issues a strong personal priority. (What's less clear to me is whether the White House will support him wholeheartedly in such efforts; but I hope they will)

[blm]

124. This article should be reposted as a new thread.

.

[machI]

127. Happy to serve

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112731059

[Cha]

125. Yes, this article should have its own OP!

Thanks mach

[machI]

128. Happy to serve

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112731059

[Cha]

129. Thank you, mach!

[patrice]

138. This is why McCain tried to pull a feint with Rice. & Wasn't Kerry also instrumental in the

Apollo Alliance? http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/apollo - Something else for Republicans to worry about.

There may be a fundamental split in the Republican party now, with some of the moderates speaking through Lawrence Wilkerson, who recently kicked Cheney's butt hard and who said things during Kerry's '04 campaign about how the real threat to the security of the USA is environment and energy, not the War on Terrorism.

[YvonneCa]

149. I agree. With video...

...and audio:

http://www.cfr.org/search/?Ntt=kerry+john&submit.x=18&submit.y=13


http://www.cfr.org/defensehomeland-security/real-security-post-911-world-remarks-senator-john-kerry/p9390

[Cha]

126. Oh, btw, ol Scott Brown has an "A" from the NRA that he might

be running from as well as his professing his favorite Justice is Scalia.. If he runs again for the Senate.

[Tx4obama]

135. Kick! n/t

[grahamhgreen]

136. Talk about playing into the Republican's hands.... omg

[alp227]

137. NYT HAS NEW DETAILS:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/politics/obama-expected-to-name-kerry-as-secretary-of-state.html

But the announcement will be delayed, at least until later this week and maybe beyond, because of the Connecticut school shooting and what one official called “some discomfort” with the idea of Mr. Obama’s announcing a national security team in which the top posts are almost exclusively held by white men.

With Ms. Rice out of the running, Mr. Kerry’s appointment “is the working presumption,” said a senior State Department official who has been preparing for the transition to a new secretary. But White House officials said the deal was not entirely done, because the lineup currently envisioned — with former Senator Chuck Hagel to head the Defense Department and the acting C.I.A. director, Michael J. Morell, likely to be named to the post permanently — looks a bit too much like national security teams of a previous era.

For Mr. Obama, a national security team led by Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel, and their longtime colleague in the Senate, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., would be deeply experienced but also, in many ways, deeply conventional. All three were in the Senate during the cold war, long before Mr. Obama came on the political scene. All describe themselves as pragmatists rather than ideologues, and all became skeptics, then critics, of the American experiment in Iraq from the early days of the war.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

150. I just don't understand why Democrats are intimidated by Scott Brown. He just lost!!!

If Democrats show up, we will win. It should be a very strong Democrat, not one of these cowardly, soft-spoken milquetoast types. The Democrats need stronger candidates in MA. It's a fairly BLUE states. I can't believe that they have no one to go up against a weak candidate like Scott Brown. We have proven that we can defeat big monied interests, so that's not the problem. The problem lies with the Democratic Party itself. They need better candidates. People won't go to the polls. They won't turn out and vote if there are weak candidates. I say Deval Patrick is their best bet, besides Barney Frank. Ed Markey would be good, too, if he wants it. They all have a record to run on. Scott Brown has done nothing for MA except to kiss the feet of the Tea Party and Wall Street bankers. Contrary to what the Corporate Media says--on the left and right--Scott Brown is not an attractive candidate. At best, he lies well, but I think Liz Warren exposed him for the liar and charlatan he is this year. If she can beat him, not having any political experience at all, he's not invincible. I'm just saying: I don't get why Democrats are so afraid of Scott Brown.

[Arkana]

155. The Sun-Times seems to be the only source for every single one of these reports.