There is some serious cowardice going on here about John Kerry's seat.

[MessiahRp]

I can't believe what I am seeing here. Everyone is playing Chicken Little about Kerry's seat should he get the job he's really wanted for years. I am going to break this down...

1. Some of you have attacked Kerry for even wanting to leave his Senate Seat.
Who the hell are you to make that call? If you worked at your place of employment for years, did an exemplary job and a position you wanted in the company opened up - how would you feel if you were told that you would never be allowed to get it despite your merits because they might hire someone that could be worse at your current position than you are?

2. Kerry is the BEST QUALIFIED PERSON for this position. There's not a person in Washington, Susan Rice INCLUDED who has his foreign policy experience and expertise.

3. Susan Rice is an Inner Circle Friend. Obama's fighting for her because she's close not because she is best qualified. Let's remember something here, not all of his inner circle friends have been good choices: Immelt, Geithner, Emanuel, Holder. All have been relative disasters. And just because Obama's OUR guy doesn't mean that we shouldn't question him on these choices. I remember hearing this nonsense the last time around and almost ZERO liberals made the Cabinet while quite a few conservatives did. We have a right to be skeptical here.

4. Rice's connections to Keystone might not be auto-disqualifying but it should give MAJOR pause. Especially with that Keystone fight still in midstream as it is right now. If we have learned anything, it's that NOBODY in Washington can be counted on to recuse themselves in situations where they will personally profit... even on our side (anybody remember Dianne Feinstein's role in Govt. Contracts to her Husband's company?).

5. We're wasting political capital from the election on Rice. Keeping this fight up means the media will keep spending time lying about Rice and Obama and Benghazi. If you don't think prolonged attacks from the media where they lie in unison about the President hurts, please check back to see how people turned against Obamacare for a long time and remind me how 2010 worked out. Kerry would make it through confirmation with flying colors.

6. Saying Brown will somehow automatically win the vacant seat in MA is total BULLSHIT. Sorry but it is. Yes he won in a special election before... because Martha Coakley was a fucking TERRIBLE candidate. That will NOT happen again. It seems so many of you forget how liberal the MA electorate tends to be. If there was one state where we can survive a special election, MA would probably be at the top of the list. I think the fact that so many of you are looking down on the MA voters the way you are in assuming a Republican will win twice there, EVEN AFTER he was just made to look like a total turd in the last campaign, shows that the paranoia here is way, way too strong.

Seriously grow a spine people. MA is winnable, I have no doubts about this. I also have no doubts that John Kerry is worth more to our country right now than just an extra vote in the Senate. Losing one vote doesn't change our majority there, nor does keeping him give us the magic 60 anti-filibuster number.

John Kerry is a good man and has served this country well. He would be an AMAZING SOS. Not that Rice wouldn't be good but the fight required to put her in the position takes away points with the public on bigger things... like raising taxes on the rich, extending unemployment benefits and protecting SS/Medicare, a much bigger fight which is already being waged.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

1. Well said.

[ret5hd]

2. pfffft...rice will do fine.

[politicaljunkie41910]

42. I agree. I love Hillary Clinton, but Hillary was a one term Senator before being appointed

Secretary of State. At this point in her professional career, Susan Rice has more experience at State and in the diplomatic corp than Hillary did when she was appointed SoS. Being married to the President, while that may give you a birdseye view and firsthand knowledge of a lot of things, that doesn't mean that you are experienced. When Hillary first went to Congress, she said she was going to spend the first part of her term listening and learning the position. And she did very well as the Senator from New York. But that doesn't mean that she is the only one capable of doing the job. Just like there were 99 other Senators besides herself then, there are other members of the Diplomatic Corp in waiting (like Susan Rice) who are just as capable as Hillary was then, and John Kerrey is now. However, the President is entitled to have a team of his choosing and he should be the one who makes the final decision based on who he wants to represend him and his interests.

[liberalhistorian]

65. Hilary has done a fantastic job as SOS,

probably one of the best we've ever had. I really wish she'd stay on, but I understand why she's tired and wants a break.

[jonthebru]

70. The way I see it

There to be only so many walls you (That would be Mrs Clinton.) want to beat your head against. SOS Clinton has "enemies foreign and domestic." And has done very well

[ProSense]

3. I believe John Kerry

admires and has tremendous respect for Susan Rice

President Obama makes the decisions about who will serve in his cabinet.


Also, the fear of Scott Brown is bizarre.

[MessiahRp]

5. I don't disagree that Kerry does respect Rice.

But the fact is, if Obama selected him the sky wouldn't fall nor is Kerry some sort of jerk for leaving the Senate for that job. Personally I prefer Kerry over Rice for the reasons above.

[roguevalley]

61. so expressing a contrary opinion is cowardice now

Sigh

[bluestate10]

85. The interesting thing is that the people using the word Coward don't know a fucking thing about

Massachusetts politics and why another Special Election will be a heavy lift for the democrats in my state. With all respects to them as democrats, I don't give a shit about what their opinion is on a political race that me and Massachusetts democrats will have to fight if Kerry vacates.

[roguevalley]

137. I agree. I don't wish that for your state either. :(

[zonkers]

6. S. Brown fear is valid. Name recognition + special election = victory. Ask Arnold and Californians

[MessiahRp]

11. LOL are you comparing Brown's recognition to one of the biggest movie stars on the planet?

That is totally an off base comparison. As I mentioned below, YES he has recognition... as an asshole and racist. Being known statewide didn't help Tommy Thompson (4-term Governor in WI) or George Allen (former Senator in VA)... recognition is only a part of the equation.

[zonkers]

25. True. But anything can happen in a special election.

[zeemike]

66. And you don't need name recognition.

Saw the same in my district when my rep took a job in the Clinton we had a special election to hake his place...a right wing preacher took his place in a district that has always been solidly democrat...because it was a special election and they basically stole it by hiding the polling place in my district...normally we voted in the school and I went there and it was not in the gymnasium as usual...and there were no signs or any sign of an election going on...I finally stopped a teacher and she directed me to a small room with a small piece of paper on the door that said vote here....when I went in the people manning the polls looked at me as if to ask how did you find us?

There are many way to rig things...

[Art_from_Ark]

67. Since it's the Senate, I don't think there would be a special election

There are special elections for vacated House seats, but it in the case of the Senate, the governor will usually appoint someone to serve the remainder of the term of the Senator who's leaving.

[bluestate10]

115. Again, a person that doesn't understand what they are posting.

My state allows the Governor to fill a vacant seat regardless of whether it is in the House or the Senate TEMPORARILY. The Governor must set a date for a Special Election that must take place within 6 months of the temporary appointment. I live in Massachusetts.

[Art_from_Ark]

122. That law has been in effect since 2004

Interesting-- and ironic-- that it was passed to prevent Governor Romney from naming a successor to Senator Kerry, in the event that Kerry should win the Presidential election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010

Apparently, Massachusetts is one of a only handful of states where the governor does not appoint a successor to fill out the remainder of the term.

[Jim Lane]

124. Under Massachusetts law, yes, there would be a special election.

The Governor appoints an interim replacement, not one to serve out the full term. A special election must be held within a certain time (maybe 145 days? I forget the exact limit).

After Ted Kennedy died, Governor Patrick appointed Paul Kirk to the seat. A special election was held a few months later, in which Kirk did not run. It was in that special election that Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley. Thus, Kirk ended up serving for less than four months.

The law requiring a prompt special election was passed in 2004, with an eye on the possibility that Kerry would win the Presidency and that Romney, then the Governor, would be able to appoint a Republican to that seat. One idea that's been floated is that the heavily Democratic state legislature might change the law back. Now that the Governor is a Democrat, a broader appointive power looks better to the legislators than it did in 2004.

[zonkers]

133. I just did a little research... it seems that

current election law requires that a vacant Kerry seat be filled by special election within 145-160 days.

[adieu]

39. He has name recognition,

but it's not all positive. I don't know Massachusetts politics, but if the Democrats could come up with any decent person (maybe Martha Coakley, even), they have a pretty good chance of beating up Brown. I think, although I can't be sure, as I don't live there, Brown lost to Warren because of buyer's remorse as much as because she was a worthier candidate.

[daa]

63. He also has money and organization I am not aware of another

Elizabeth lurking in the shadows. I signed petitions and urged her to run way before she announced. Don't really see that nationwide clamoring to fill Kerry's seat.

[Chan790]

68. Having lived in MA...

no, it's not valid.

Brown is DOA if his opponent is...named Kennedy, endorsed by a Kennedy, Deval Patrick, any one of a very deep bench of great MA Democrats, not Martha Coakley,...I can go on.

I'm about as scared of Brown ever winning a major election again as I am William Weld or Mitt Romney. Mark that, I'm more scared of Weld or Romney. I'll go so far as to say regardless of what the national party wants, MAGOP is not stupid enough to run Scott Brown. His "name" is in the shitter after that last campaign.

[Gman]

78. Every special election is different

you can't compare Arnold and CA to MA. There's very little similar.

[bluestate10]

89. The thing is, California now is better positioned for a Special Election than my state of

Massachusetts now. Maybe the Kerry pushers should demand that the President name Diane Feinstein as SOS, Feinstein is head of the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and has spent most of her Senate career in the area of foreign affairs. By getting Feinstein out, California democrats can elect a Progressive to the Senate to replace her.

[JDPriestly]

117. Feinstein could do the job. She would be great.

And there is no way the Senate could refuse to confirm her.

[freshwest]

53. I've never seen a video or read an article suggesting Kerry longs for the job of SoS.

Do you have one for me, ProSense?

TIA.

[David Zephyr]

116. +1,000

Thank you. Both Susan Rice and John Kerry are qualified to serve with President Obama and I soo agree that this paranoia about Scott Brown is bizarre.

Whoever President Obama chooses, I am going to support. Period.

[BainsBane]

4. Why do you believe Kerry is better qualified?

Many of your points are good, but I object to 5. I think it would be a mistake to capitulate to the Republicans on this.

But why do you say Kerry is better qualified? Rice has a PhD, has been studying foreign relations full time her entire life, and has diplomatic experience in the State Dept. and at the UN. I believe that is more directly relevant experience than chairing the Foreign Relations committee.

[MessiahRp]

9. Kerry has been in the SFRC for years

and has been at the forefront of MANY of our diplomatic negotiations for decades now.

And it's not capitulating, it's saving our fight for one that's worthwhile. Say we drag this shit out and the Rice confirmation takes a long time and gets uglier and uglier as the media and RW spins Obama into some sort of permanent conspiracy corner over Benghazi (they're already trying this)... the mainstream support that Obama won in November doesn't last forever. It will erode as will our chances to use that cushion with the public on fights they DO care about, namely the disparity of wealth and raising taxes on the rich. People cared about Health Care and we went into that fight with Obama's inner circle buddies dismissing liberals at every turn. Obama started to lose public confidence that he had when he rolled in the 2008 elections and by the time HCR was finished, 2010 was a DISASTER for us. If he spends that energy on Rice, we're going to lose people who fall prey to MSM bias and not have those people's support once we go after taxes. 2014 will not go well if that happens.

[BainsBane]

28. A persuasive argument

I see your point.

[bluestate10]

91. Rice has been a diplomat since the early 90s. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

95. At some point or another, this Benghazi BS that the Republicans are trying to perpetuate

is going to get old without any new fresh evidence of wrongdoing. How many people does anybody here know whom are talking about this? I know of nobody outside these boards. Most people whom ARE aware of it don't believe that there was any coverup. Susan Rice didn't even have anything to do with what happened in Benghazi other than disseminating talking points on Sunday morning talk shows shortly afterwards that she was approved BY THE CIA to deliver in a manner that avoided tipping off the suspects that we were on to them. In fact, a confirmation battle just might be the best way to finally expose the Republicans' hypocrisy and idiocy over it- though I about imagine that McCain, Graham, Ayotte, et. al are probably helping every time they hold another one of their bizarre couch-fainting "press conferences" talking about how "troubled" they are by Susan Rice and repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered. I think that it's fair to say that most people- if they were forced to really pay attention to the aforementioned Senators' ramblings about Rice- would come away from the confirmation hearings scratching their heads about THEIR fitness to continue to hold their seats.

[joeybee12]

7. Unrec...it's not bullshit to be concerened about Brown winning Kerry's seat...

Brown is known state-wide...do not underestimate the automatic advantage that gives him.

[Laurian]

8. But wouldn't it be fun to kick his ass twice?

He might go away for good after that.

[joeybee12]

14. He might not even want to run...

I suppose we are assuming he would...that's not a definite at this point...

[DonViejo]

19. Kind of like assuming Rice is the President's choice for SoS...

just because some anonymous source said she was (that same source said Senator Kerry was under consideration for the post).

[bluestate10]

93. Scott Brown will run. He is an entitled asshole. He won't give up that chance if it comes.

And if Kerry vacates, I don't see Massachusetts republicans nominating anyone but him, those assholes are like dogs sniffing a fire hydrant, they have no imagination and go purely on instinct.

[MessiahRp]

10. Yeah he is known statewide... as an asshole and racist. The last campaign EXPOSED him.

You forget how being known statewide actually HURTS him as well.

[joeybee12]

13. Disagree...it wasn't a blow-out...

I can't think of anyone except Deval who is known state-wide

[jeff47]

16. Which is why he out-performed Romney by 20 points.

....oh wait.

[MessiahRp]

51. He outperformed Romney because Romney was even worse than Brown

Brown pretended to be a moderate much longer than Romney. The difference is towards the end of the campaign the tide SERIOUSLY turned against Brown for his racist Cherokee shit. That's damage that is irreparable.

[jeff47]

71. Yet that still doesn't change he out-performed Romney by 20 points.

You're ignoring a ton of people who voted for both Obama and Brown.

[bluestate10]

96. Brown got over 1.2 million votes has a 1 million vote base. nt

[Proud Public Servant]

12. If you can't see the threat Brown poses

Go look at Obama's margin of victory over Romney in Mass. Now look at Warren's margin over Brown. Now remember that a special election will have lower turnout than a general election, and low turnout favors teh GOP. Now do you see the problem?

[ProSense]

15. That mean's nothing.

Brown was the incumbent, and people spent a lot of time hyping the fact that he would win because of his popularity and denigrating Warren as a candidate.

She kicked his ass.

[jeff47]

18. She barely kicked his ass.

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

In a special election where Brown vs (to be named later) is the only thing on the ballot, Brown will do much better than in this last election. He'll easily do more than 7% better. Which means he wins.

Edit - fix parenthesis.

[ProSense]

21. A come-from-behind candidate beats a popular incumbent by 8 points

is an ass-kicking, one that suggests the popularity Brown enjoyed is over. He fooled enough people for a long time. Democrats are not likely to support a Blunt amendment supporting and race-baiting candidate.

[jeff47]

40. You're completely ignoring how much better he did than Romney.

That shows that he's still quite popular, just slightly less than Warren.

If we were talking about 2016, Brown would be toast. But we're talking about a special election, not 2016.

[ProSense]

43. No, I'm not.

That is not unsual, and Romney really sucked. People in MA hate him.

[jeff47]

46. And they're fond of Brown. Just slightly less than they are of Warren. (nt)

[ProSense]

50. They were.

Say it: Scott Brown sucks!

Repeat it.

Hyping Brown and holding him up as someone to fear is not the job of Democrats.

[jeff47]

73. Is ignoring the real world and the last special election the job of Democrats? (nt)

[Chan790]

77. Do you not understand how overwhelmingly liberal MA is?

Let's put it this way...the only reason he won the first time was because Coakley ran no campaign whatsoever and he got some support from moderate Democrats because he ran as a fiscal moderate/social liberal under a tea-party banner...what we in New England used to call a liberal Republican. (see: Lowell Weicker, Lincoln Chafee)

Scott Brown cannot win a contested election against a decent foe. You act like MA Democrats are going to roll over and die screaming "The sky is falling!" rather than run a decent candidate. They have a deep bench.

MAGOP has one guy on their bench...a former Senator that just got trounced by 8% by a candidate that had never run for office before. Brown has as much chance of ever returning to the Senate as Rick Santorum has of being elected President.

Please stop, Chicken Little.

[jeff47]

88. Again, special elections greatly favor Republicans. That's true everywhere.

And Brown is still very popular, despite "how overwhelmingly liberal MA is".

I'm not saying the race would be unwinnable. I'm saying it will be a difficult race.

However, I think the Senate is the weakest argument against Kerry for SoS - 55D/45R is indistinguishable from 54D/46R if the worst happened.

I'm far more concerned that if Republicans get Rice's scalp, they will continue the insane witch-hunts for the rest of Obama's term. Because it worked.

[bluestate10]

98. There is nothing to gain by arguing with this poster.

I have much respect for her on most issues she usually take, but on this one, she is unquestionably and surprisingly lost. Lost to the extent that she can't defer to Massachusetts residents, the majority of whom don't want a Special Election.

[MessiahRp]

23. 8 points over an incumbent is NOT a close race.

If you think the whole Cherokee nonsense didn't damage him badly, I don't think you were paying attention.

[jeff47]

41. Doing 20% better than Romney shows he's still quite popular.

You can't ignore all those voters that chose both Obama and Brown.

[Gman]

80. Exactly

Generally it is unusual for an incumbent Senator to lose. The race was Brown's to lose and he did.

[NAO]

17. In AZ in 2009 Obama took our Democratic Gov, and we got The Grim Brewer

Because Janet Napalatano (D) was tapped by Obama for Director of Homeland Security, Lt. Gov Jan Brewer (R) became Governor of Arizona.

Democrat Terry Goddard was lined up to win in 2010, but then Brewer rolled out SB 1070, the "show me your papers" law, and became an overnight sensation. You know the rest.

All that would not have happened if Obama hadn't taken Napalatano for the DHS.

[MessiahRp]

22. Yeah because AZ and KS are quality comparisons

Those are two of the furthest right wing states in the nation. It's not even remotely the same situation.

[TheKentuckian]

125. That and pulling Sibelius out of Kansas was straight boneheaded

You don't take down hard won fire walls in rough states like that. Even with looming term limits you hold the line as long as possible and maintain whatever infrastructure you have for the next round.

I don't know why we always have to go with names instead of using these positions to jewel up a deeper bench and in some cases to remove an obstacle and make them be an asset in an area of expertise (well, except all their guys are know nothings, corporate hacks, and immoral doctors).
Why can't we elevate some safe city mayors, Lt. Governors, maybe some people from different walks of life, and certainly to rehab fallen stars that still have good rubber on the wheels?

I think we should be more creative and have real search committees that dig deeper with shrewd strategies at work.

[julian09]

20. She isn't being attacked by the media but by three gop senators who are partisan

hacks; she has been defended by CIA, FBI and many Dem senators. If your watching media it would be obvious.
Kerry would be giving up a lot seniority and clout in senate for a short stint at STATE,
Brown would never challenge Kerry in 2016 another presidential election year. Brown going for Gov is ridiculous, he has no executive experience.

[frazzled]

24. #2 and 3 are not correct

2. Kerry is the BEST QUALIFIED PERSON for this position. There's not a person in Washington, Susan Rice INCLUDED who has his foreign policy experience and expertise.

Although Kerry is eminently qualified, one cannot say that he is the BEST qualified. There are probably a dozen (at least) equally qualified candidates, many of whose names we don't even know. As for Susan Rice, you know her qualifications, but I'll repeat the basic outline:

• valedictorian at National Cathedral School in Washington, D.C.,
• attended Stanford University, where she received a Truman Scholarship, and graduated with a B.A. in history in 1986. She was elected to Phi Beta Kappa
• Awarded a Rhodes Scholarship, Rice attended New College, Oxford, where she earned a M.Phil. in 1988 and D.Phil. in 1990. The Chatham House-British International Studies Association honored her dissertation entitled, "Commonwealth Initiative in Zimbabwe, 1979-1980: Implication for International Peacekeeping" as the UK's most distinguished in international relations
• foreign policy aide to Michael Dukakis during the 1988 presidential election.
• served in the Clinton administration in various capacities: at the National Security Council from 1993 to 1997; as Director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping from 1993 to 1995 and as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs from 1995 to 1997.
• In 2002, joined the Brookings Institution as senior fellow in the Foreign Policy program. At Brookings, she focused on U.S. foreign policy, weak and failing states, the implications of global poverty, and transnational threats to security.
• During the 2004 presidential campaign, served as a foreign policy adviser to John Kerry.
• senior foreign policy advisor to Senator Barack Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign
• December 1, 2008, nominated by President-elect Obama to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, a position which he also upgraded to cabinet level

John Kerry has a long and distinguished career in politics and has served on the Senate Foreign Relations committee for many years. This makes him very qualified. However, you can not say that he is decisively better qualified than someone who did their graduate work in foreign relations, served in the State Department, served three presidential candidates as a foreign policy adviser, wrote and researched at a liberal think tank on foreign policy issues, and served for four years as ambassador to the United Nations. They're BOTH highly qualified.

3. Susan Rice is an Inner Circle Friend.

No, as you can see, Susan Rice was involved in government on the foreign policy side since 1988, as adviser to Dukakis, as a member of the Clinton administration, and at the pre-eminent liberal think tank. Barack Obama didn't pick her off of a basketball court. (The same goes for Holder, Emanuel, and Geithner--all of whom served President Clinton long before they'd ever heard of Barack Obama.) If I didn't know better, I'd say you were basing your comment about being an Obama insider on the color of these two people's faces. Kerry is as much an insider as Rice in this respect: he gave Obama his first national speaking engagement.

You're just wrong on this, and in a (sadly) kind of offensive way: offensive to trained diplomats, to women, and to people of color. She is eminently qualified, so let's not make that an issue.

[MessiahRp]

31. Nice try - pushing a racism charge out there.

This has NOTHING to do with race. I mentioned Emanuel, Geithner, Immelt... none of them are black. It's not about being a Washington Insider... it's about being in OBAMA's PERSONAL INNER CIRCLE. I pretty much made that clear.

Rice's credentials are nice but I'd put Kerry's up against hers all day long and I don't think there's much of a battle over who has been more involved at a top level in foreign diplomacy.

Also if read her idiotic comments today RE: Palestinian Statehood, you'd realize that she isn't up to a job where one of our main foreign diplomacy goals is lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

You couldn't be more wrong on your pathetic racism charge. All that says to me is you had nothing legitimate to argue with in your defense of Obama's rather dubious choices.

[frazzled]

52. You have in no way addressed the issue of qualifications

Except to say you think Kerry is better. Fine. But that is merely your opinion, and I doubt you are a policy specialist. Neither am I. I did not chose one over the other. My point was to say that they are both qualified, and you cannot say who is moreso.

In addition, any comments Susan Rice makes to the UN are mere reflections of the administration's positions. If you don't like this administration, I'm afraid you'll just have to live with it. If Kerry were to become SoS, he'd have to say exactly the same thing (what Obama wants him to say) regarding Palestinian statehood. It will not be one iota different.

[frylock]

56. she's also a warhawk that said EVERYONE knew that saddam had WMD..

she pretty much implied that you're fucking stupid to believe otherwise. real big cheerleader for the iraq invasion. fuck her.

[DeltaLitProf]

72. Are you sure you don't mean Condoleezza Rice?

n/t

[frazzled]

84. My won't you blush

Senator John Kerry, October 9, 2002:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Kerry, Senate floor speech, October, 2002:

"When I vote to give the president of the US the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat."

Kerry, speech at Georgetown University, January 2003:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime he presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp


Kerry, Speech to Council on Foreign Relations in response to Bush announcing we were going to war, March 18, 2003 (day before bombing was to begin):

"Regardless of the Administration's mishandling of so much of this situation, no President can defer the national security decisions of this country to the United Nations or any other multilateral institution or individual country.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it."

Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly , I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

http://www.cfr.org/world/senator-john-kerrys-statement-response-presidents-speech-nation/p5722

[frylock]

131. i went through my post and nowhere did i advocate for kerry..

quite frankly, i don't understand why these are the only names we're hearing.

[K8-EEE]

26. AMEN!! nt

[dchill]

27. Ed Markey for the win.

Brown is damaged goods. (Bads?)

[jeff47]

29. There's a few flaws in your argument

Point 3.....so what? OMG! The President wants a close ally in his cabinet!!!!!! EEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

Point 4.....You are aware that it's possible to sell stock, not just buy it? Buying energy stocks in the past few years is a good investment decision - they've gone up a ton. If you're worried about conflict-of-interest, push for her to sell before becoming SoS (if she ends up the nominee).

Point 5.....Political capital doesn't get "spent" in the way you claim. At this point, backing down would be far more damaging to Obama - it would teach the Republicans that insane opposition works. Giving in on Rice now makes Obama shrink, and makes the Republicans larger. And it means Republicans will keep pushing Benghazi for the rest of the term. Doesn't matter that there's nothing there, the Republicans will just insinuate there was something wrong. Just like with Bill Clinton's first term.

Political capital goes up when you do things that are popular, and goes down when you do something unpopular. Blocking Rice over Benghazi is unpopular. So Republicans are losing political capital on this - despite what the pundits say, the public doesn't think there was anything wrong. Obama would gain by standing up to them.

Why should we copy the failures of the Clinton administration and listen to the pundits over the public?

Point 6.....Brown out-performed Romney by 20%. He only lost by 7%. The special election to replace Kerry would only have one race on the ballot. And we know that massively favors Republicans. Just the fact that it's a special election would gain Brown those 7%. And about the only person currently in a good position to beat Brown (Gov. Patrick) has said he wants to finish his term.

Additionally the Democrat in the race would have to build up their campaign infrastructure from scratch, while Brown just re-starts the the campaign he's currently shutting down.

It would be a very difficult race for the Democrat. Doesn't mean its not winnable, but it's most definitely not the cakewalk you propose.

If you want to try and disarm the Senate seat argument, you're much better off pointing out 55D/45R is really not different than 54D/46R.

[bluestate10]

102. One of my concerns is if we Massachusetts democrats don't win a Special Election,

it open a bad door for democrats with key 2013 and 2014 elections coming up. We have a good chance to retake the Virginia Governor's chair in 2013 and either retake the Virginia legislature of dramatically reduce the republican advantage there. We need to think long and hard about fucking up the advantage that we worked hard to gain this year. California is better positioned for a special election with it's enormously powerful democratic base and many good solid Progressive democratic candidates that could bid for a Senate seat that is vacated by Diane Feinstein, plus California democrats will get rid of a bluedog.

[BeyondGeography]

30. "Cowardice" is a ridiculous way to put it

Your points are reasonable and worth discussing. Labeling everyone who disagrees with you a coward up top is juvenile.

FWIW, Brown did get his ass kicked but it was by a beloved national figure on the left who turned out to be a damned good campaigner and debater as well. Big fall-off from Warren to the same people who couldn't beat Martha Coakley in a primary.

[MessiahRp]

34. Juvenile?

I've seen people on THIS VERY BOARD attack Kerry for even considering giving up his job as if he were a selfish asshole. I've seen one poster say that Obama has "lost them" if they picked Kerry (who they went on to bash).

The Kerry bashing on this board has been fucking sickening since 2003 and honestly a lot of it is coming up again in this nomination situation. So I honestly don't care if people don't like me calling out the pathetic hand wringing and constant concern trolling over Kerry potentially getting this position. When other Dems leave the Senate, they rarely get bashed the way he does for doing absolutely nothing.

THAT is what is ridiculous here.

Oh and I can name two candidates that can beat Brown right now: Patrick and Markey. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Coakley was a terrible candidate in the general and didn't deserve to win. That will NOT happen again.

[BeyondGeography]

38. Hey, I love Kerry

I'd also like to see him get the job. He is eminently qualified and he has toiled in the Senate forever.

Markey could win, but I don't see him as a slam dunk. Is there any evidence that Patrick actually wants to run for Senate this year?

[bluestate10]

103. Governor Deval Patrick can beat Brown, but he is the only democrat in the state now that can do that

If we Massachusetts democrats can get to 2014 or 2016, we will be loaded for bear, with Patrick and Joe Kennedy III available to take on any republican.

[99th_Monkey]

32. Your post would be more convincing if you named ONE MA Dem who can beat Brown.

and explained exactly how that candidate could overcome the powerful advantages Brown
has coming out of the starting gate i.e. name familiarity, a strong GOP base, a recently
active campaign that could easily be re-assembled, etc.

[MessiahRp]

36. Patrick or Markey. There's two.

Brown is now known as a jerk who used racism against Warren, how does that being known statewide HELP in any way?

[99th_Monkey]

57. 46.3% of the state is already in Brown's back pocket

I'm not fixated in my position on this. If there are Dems who truly
have an odds-on chance of winning, then I hope that happens.

Also, I agree that Kerry would be a good SOS..

[jeff47]

74. Patrick has said he wants to finish his term.

For all your claims about elections in MA, it's kinda surprising you don't know this.

[bluestate10]

104. Do you live in Massachusetts? If not I suggest that you stand down with the BS. nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

33. That's all well and good....

But the real issue here is Susan Rice SHOULD NOT be disqualified for bullshit attacks about Benghazi from cranks.

The President should be allowed to choose the best person, whether it be Rice or Kerry.

[MessiahRp]

35. Then she should be disqualified for other things.

Keystone is one. Her remarks today about a Palestinian State prove she is not a fair arbiter in the biggest foreign policy process we intervene in. She is not suited for the position.

[bluestate10]

105. Kerry ones far more Keystone stock and more energy stocks in general than Rice does. nt

[karynnj]

134. Source please - even the DKos diary simply said he had other stocks

In fact, "Kerry's" stocks that are referred to include his wife's assets. Their assets have come up in the past and his office has always responded the same way. In addition, they do not buy or sell stocks. The stocks listed are the stocks in the Heinz family trust, of which Teresa is a beneficiary, but not a trustee and has nothing to do with the management of those accounts. John kerry is a beneficiary of the Forbes and the Winthrop trusts - something he and his siblings inherited when their mom died. Again, he is one of many beneficiaries and has no input or control over their stocks.

Instead, defend Rice on this. She may have a similar situation or she may own funds that hold the stocks among other stocks. She may be willing to put them in a blind trust.

[Marrah_G]

37. After the fucking fight we just had here in Mass to get Warren elected...

I think we are justified in being worried about having to do it all again.

Are you from Mass? If not, I would seriously tone down your rant a bit.

[MessiahRp]

45. So you speak for all MA Dems?

Brown lost by 8 points as an incumbent with dark money spending a fortune on him. That's a romp. Losing makes it harder for you to win the next time, he's not starting with some sort of advantage.

[Marrah_G]

49. I just think your rant was a but much

Those Mass Dems who are worried about this have every right to be. If Kerry's seat end up having to be fought for all over again, we will fight again. Will we win? Frankly, I just don't know.

[MessiahRp]

100. You're shortchanging your state.

A solid candidate will beat Brown. He has the disadvantage of having been exposed as not a moderate in the Senate and being a racist in the campaign. I have faith in MA voters, you should too.

[bluestate10]

107. It is becoming more and more clear to me that you don't know a fucking thing about my state

and it's political environment. Why don't you respect Massachusetts residents that say we DON'T WANT A FUCKING SPECIAL ELECTION RIGHT NOW? At some point BS become tiring. BTW, I fully agree with the other Massachusetts resident whose opinion you appear to be determined to disqualify, we Massachusetts democrats will fight a special election if we get thrown into one, but we can say that we will win it. That is not cowardice, it is fucking reality.

[MessiahRp]

127. Yes, YOU are the arbiter of all MA Dems

And the other person is far more reasonable than you and your apparently fragile emotional state as displayed throughout the thread (as well as on others). Don't want to participate, stay at home during the campaign.

Besides, Kerry being in the Senate or not, doesn't change a thing as far as the numbers go so your Chicken Little act means nothing.

[bluestate10]

128. No. But I don't suffer fools gladly. nt

[bluestate10]

106. The poster speaks for me. I live in Massachusetts and know how tough the last 3 races were. nt

[SoCalDem]

44. John Kerry may be qualified, and a wonderful guy, BUT

we have a razor-thin majority, headed for big trouble in 2014 (look at the map). It's not unreasonable to want to hold the "sure thing".

[MessiahRp]

47. How does one seat in the Senate change anything?

We don't go to filibuster proof by keeping him, we don't lose the majority by losing him and EITHER WAY his seat is up again in 2014.

[SoCalDem]

54. Fine. No appointment is guaranteed for 4 years.

If he chooses to not run in '14, and tells Obama that, perhaps he could take the last 2 yrs as Sec of State..and let someone else have the first 2 yrs. Notifying everyone that he does not plan to run again, allows for ONE election for that seat (instead of 2 back-to-back) and for someone else who does want to be senator to have an orderly progression, instead of a mad-scramble that ends up with Scott Brown back in the senate

[bluestate10]

108. In 2014, we Massachusetts democrats will have Kerry, or Deval Patrick, or Joe Kennedy III to defend

the seat. Either one would be unbeatable under the circumstances that they will be running. Patrick will be a very popular Governor coming off two terms and will have a statewide organization that he has kept up after his win in 2010.

[karynnj]

135. In 2014, whoever wins the election (or Kerry) will have to run for re-election

You may want to look at Brown's votes today. He voted against this bill which got 67 votes - " To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States." and against two alternative fuel amendments.

He also spoke of not being willing to raise any taxes to avoid the fiscal cliff.

Does this sound like he even intends to run?

[Flatpicker]

48. I don't think it's cowardice

To say that the Republicans are trying to play chess with this position.

[tularetom]

55. At this point I still support Rice

Primarily because McCain and his little butt boy have made such a big stink about her. But I would not put it past Obama to do a last minut switcheroo and nominate Kerry just to fake them out.

And that would be okay with me as well.

[Qutzupalotl]

58. Brown is not just any Republican.

I'm not saying that to incite fear. I'm saying that because he's the single most bought-and-paid-for person in the Senate, willing to do all of the financial industry's bidding.

The financial industry is no doubt leaning on McCain and Graham to derail Rice because they think Brown can win a special election. That's all they have; they're out of options and really are that desperate. Just the CHANCE of Brown winning a special election, however remote, is enough for them to put all their resources into this scheme and destroy any remaining credibility McCain and Graham had, which is not much. They look like complete fools now.

Rice and Kerry are eminently qualified and either would be a terrific SoS. But I'd like to think Obama has a surprise third nominee waiting in the wings, just to watch the McCain meltdown.

[sheshe2]

76. Massachusetts here...

I'm saying that because he's the single most bought-and-paid-for person in the Senate, willing to do all of the financial industry's bidding.

Maybe. However money didn't buy him Love here in MA. Warren kicked his ASS!

[Qutzupalotl]

94. Granted, she did kick his ass,

and I will defer to MA residents about strong candidates to replace Kerry. I don't know the names mentioned upthread. If one of them can beat Brown, great. I do believe Warren was helped by her national stature and good debate performances. Special elections usually get much lower turnout, and I think the financial industry thinks they can buy the seat. Having him back in the Senate would be terrible. For me, it's not about 46 vs. 45 votes, it's about having a corporate stooge with filibuster power.

[bluestate10]

110. Brown has a million vote base that came out in the special election that he won.

If we get forced into a one on one match-up with Brown, I hope Deval Patrick takes up the banner, he is the ONLY democrat in the state right now with enough statewide organization to beat Brown. Markey would get defeated, as would Meehan because they would not poll well in the southeastern part of the state as well as Patrick will. BTW, Patrick gave enormous support to Warren, some of his 2010 campaign people worked for Warren.

[taintedtriumph]

59. Brown would have no chance

Anyone who thinks Scott Brown would "automatically win" clearly doesn't live in MA. Brown lost by 8 points and just got hammered with negative advertising for the last 6 months. Brown won the first time around by being an unknown commodity, he'd have no such luck if there were a next time. Voters here in MA are well aware of who Brown is and what he stands for (rubberstamp Republican pretending to be "independent&quot .

The way I see it, in 2010 MA voters were a bit confused. In 2012 they remembered "hey, we're liberals!" Let the red states elect "moderates."

[hrmjustin]

60. Well said my friend and welcome to DU.

[MessiahRp]

90. EXACTLY!

Brown was UNKNOWN when he ran against a terrible candidate. He's known now. The State didn't just vote against him, they voted out an incumbent by 8 points even though Warren had a ridiculous amount of dark money running ads against her. There's no way that he just wins because he was there before.

[bluestate10]

111. I live in Massachusetts. Brown has a million vote base, which is enormous in a Special Election

in my state. Unless you live in my state then please don't make uninformed assumptions about it.

[ProSense]

118. Coakley got a million votes.

Brown won by 100,000 votes.

[The Old Creak]

62. If you're into tar sands...

You're into Rice

[bluestate10]

112. Kerry owns something like 3 times the amount of tar sands. What about that? nt

[liberalhistorian]

64. Sorry, but spineless, pedantic

muffin man Kerry would make a lousy SOS and we'd suffer for it as a nation. And Obama needs to leave the Senate the hell alone when it comes to appointments, particularly for those Dem senators in states with repub governors. We need every single Dem senator we have. There are plenty of other qualified Cabinet candidates who are not in the Senate.

[MessiahRp]

101. He's already been absolutely vital in MANY foreign policy negotiations

so you couldn't be MORE WRONG.

[liberalhistorian]

129. Oh, I get it now. Anyone who

disagrees with you in the slightest is completely WRONG or is a troll and merits no further discussion. You'll just stamp your feet, wave your fists and go home. No one is permitted to disagree with your greatness, not even the Dems who are actually in MA and who know what they're talking about, unlike you. Yeah, I got it now.

[bluestate10]

113. We have a democratic Governor in Massachusetts. He is very popular and is the only democrat here

that can beat Brown. Deval Patrick's statewide voter organization is still up, I know because I am part of it. But even so, I don't want a Special Election. I think Obama nominating Feinstein if he doesn't nominate Rice for SOS is a better idea that nominating Kerry. If Feinstein leaves, the Senate will almost surely pick up one more Progressive democrat to replace her, given how powerfully democrats control California and how many good candidates are available there.

[SCVDem]

69. The President is laughing his ass off!

I see the experienced former ambassador to China getting the Sec State position.

Jon Huntsman

Any questions?

[MessiahRp]

99. Yeah why not give every cabinet position to Republicans? WHAT A GREAT IDEA!

He can add on to the ones he appointed last time and give Huntsman this slot and Hagel SOD... then when his Circle of Enemies turn against him or secretly work against him in negotiations, we can just chalk it up to there being no difference in the parties come 2016 and LOSE again.

[Gman]

75. thanks for saying what needed to be said

It's amazing how people here act sometimes.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

79. Yeah, but maybe you're forgetting that Brown

drives a truck.

Actually, I'm not sure why I'm laughing. People are swayed by that kind of BS.

[bluestate10]

81. Kerry owns more stock in Keystone that Rice does.

Another thing. Unless you live in Massachusetts, you don't know the fuck what you are talking about. Let your state go through three tough, emotional, expensive elections in two years and then come back talking. Until then, you have no standing on this issue.

[MessiahRp]

86. I was waiting for you to troll this. Especially since Obama will have "LOST YOU" if he picks Kerry.

If these elections are too tough, emotional, expensive (though in fairness, not likely to you personally) then maybe you can sit the next one out and just vote. You have no standing on this issue either just so you know. Obama will pick who he picks. But if it's Kerry and you still don't support him it's not because these races are too "tough", it's because you don't have Kerry or Obama's back. And that says more about you than them.

[bluestate10]

119. President Obama can pick Kerry if he wants. But me and other Massachusetts democrats will have

to show up to the polls to hold the seat for democrats. If anyone but Deval Patrick runs, I don't think we can do that. Joe Kennedy II may be a wild card, but he has been out of office for around a decade and may not want to get in the way of his son, who will be primed for the seat if/when Kerry retires. BTW, I have a shit load of standing, I vote in Massachusetts, you apparently don't. I contributed over $5,000 to Obama and $1,000 to Warren. If you read my posts any time some one on DU questioned President Obama leading up to the election, you would see that I was one of his staunchest defenders. Don't fucking question whether I have President Obama's back, you have no idea of what you're talking about.

[MessiahRp]

126. Yet he would LOSE YOU if he picked Kerry. That's YOUR quote.

So much for "having his back". Money isn't everything.

If the President appoints Kerry, the President has lost me in the fight to retain the seat, the President would not have been listening to some loyal democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1810356

[bluestate10]

130. The quote was over the top. I could not believe the President was seriously thinking about putting

our state democrats through another though election so soon. The fact is I will participate in a Special Election as a voter and democratic supporter if we are forced into one, but I am not sure that Massachusetts democrats can hold the seat during a 2013 Special Election that would occur some time during the summer.

[MzShellG]

82. Susan Rice will do just as good a job as Hillary Clinton has done. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

83. Teddy's seat could never go republican...

but then it did.

[MessiahRp]

87. Thanks to a pathetic candidate.

So, sure, do that again and it might happen. I don't see MA Dems taking it for granted this time around, do you?

[awoke_in_2003]

97. I wouldn't think so...

but I also don't like to tempt fate

[bluestate10]

121. Coakley easily beat every other candidate in the primary. She would even have beaten Deval Patrick

at that time because Patrick had a 32% approval rating then due to him having to clean up Romney's fuck ups. I voted for some one other than Coakley in the democratic primary, but did vote for her in the Special Election. Coakley SHOULD have easily won, but she ran the most incompetent campaign that I have seen during my life and she would not listen to people like Patrick. As things are, Brown was allowed to get in the hen-house, that is where we are today. Warren beat Brown, but you should not underestimate how difficult that was or how much of a special candidate Warren was.

[graham4anything]

92. The 5 greatest presidents ever-LINCOLN-FDR-LBJ-CARTER-OBAMA

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:36 PM - Edit history (1)

the sixth will be Hillary45.

The hatred for Barack Obama must be sheer jealousy or something

Putting down in one post five of the best cabinet of all time is amazing

Putting down Eric Holder, President Obama and Susan Rice, well seems to me, the three have something in common. All are being lynched.

And anyone who remembers history knows Bill Clinton got impeached, but not ousted because the dems had the senate

yet people want to risk losing it by2014, thereby enabling the repubs to do just that

I would offer the position to Joe Biden as he legally can be SOS and VP at the same time.

Though giving it to Wesley Clark would be so ironic, as Wesley of course would have been a much better VP choice for 2004 over the fraud that was picked.

It always irked me that I read that John Edwards or one of his staff ran a whisper campaign that he was the great white male hope in trying to get past Barack Obama and HIllary Clinton.
IMHO he was a worse pick than Dan Quayle(who served a purpose for Bush41(Get well soon Mr. Bush).

[blm]

109. Don't like Edwards, but, why post that he ran a whispering campaign as 'great white male hope'

when many of us here are plugged in enough to Dem campaigns to know for a certainty that you are not telling the truth?

Your posts are so disconnected that one could conclude that you are not being forthright.

[JDPriestly]

114. John Kerry did not challenge the Ohio election results in 2004.

He is a good man and a good senator. I don't think he has the feistiness and determination we need in our secretary of state.

Besides, I have read that he is friends with McCain, Lieberman and Graham, the three who are blamed for causing problems with regard to Rice.

If there is the slightest bit of truth in the suggestion that the complaints about Rice are intended to pave the way for Kerry, it is absolutely disgusting.

Further, I would want to know who would run for Kerry's seat. It isn't enough that Coakley was a weak candidate or that Mass. is reputed to be a liberal state. The fact is that, following Ted Kennedy's death, liberal Mass. elected Scott Brown -- who is totally unworthy to sit in the Senate.

We need Kerry in the Senate, and I don't think he is suited for the office of Secretary of State.

[NYC Liberal]

120. Even though I am wary about appointing ANY senator...

I am not worried about Scott Brown in this case. He got thumped pretty badly. Brown, an incumbent, lost by 8 points to a woman who had never run for office before.

The only reason he won in 2010 was because we ran a terrible candidate. He almost won by default. In 2012, we PROVED that a strong candidate, or even a halfway decent one, will easily beat Brown.

[rhett o rick]

123. I think this discussion is moot. The Pres will appoint who he wants. nm

[TheKentuckian]

132. I'm not in love with Rice. I can't get an argument against Kerry for almost

any position in government on the merits.

I think those that are worried have more truth than you give credit for but most of the talk is mis-targeted I believe.

I really think the special election is the problem, election fatigue has to be off the charts and the whole deal seems from my distance to be a sticky subject with a lot of folks there.

I imagine having to gin up all this money back to back is an issue in the current environment too. You have to spend so damn much to even compete and sure we could help but there have been heavy hitting negatives on outside money. Probably not so much in big media market areas so that is negligible nowadays, I guess.

I think you are overall closer to right than most of those you're addressing but the situation is a lift for those who have to do it. Not the semi Alamo some are crying about but far from a pass. A should win but a honest possible to lose situation. Maybe a Texans versus Chargers deal, at best.

[tama]

136. Kerry is tar sand man

hoping to make big buck out of destruction of planet. Fuck all big oil goons.