Who would you like for Secretary of State?

[julialnyc]

[AtomicKitten]

1. That list for the most part is an embarrassment of riches.

Put me down for John Kerry for SOS.

[julialnyc]

7. Totally

Feels great!

[bdamomma]

2. They are all good choices.

Bill Richardson would be great, his qualifications are spot on, plus he was an Ambassador.

[democrattotheend]

3. Kerry or Richardson

I'm torn because I think Richardson is a little more experienced for it, but Kerry is a little bit more progressive. They would both be great picks but I voted for Kerry in the poll because he took a risk endorsing Obama before just about anyone else and he's had his back the whole time. Richardson also took a risk when he endorsed Obama though, because it was during the Reverend Wright thing when it looked like Obama might go down, and because of his relationship with the Clintons.

[karynnj]

18. It's hard to compare their experience

Kerry has 24 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, continuing up to the present. Richardson had diplomatic experience in the 1990s. So,

- Richardson has had experience that is more similar, at a lower level than SoS

- Kerry has had experience over a longer time frame including into the present time. Because the world has changed a lot in the last 8 years, Kerry's contacts and information being current is a big plus.

- Kerry, partially because of his 2004 run is more high profile and was treated that way by the media and people in other countries. Teresa, when and if, she were with him would be a major asset.

- Richardson has negotiated treaties as part of his Clinton era work - but Kerry, even without the position, has been able to broker or draft agreements - Three I know of were:
- That it was a Kerry proposal that was used to craft how the Cambodian tribunals would be done - and that model was then used in at least one other country.
- Kerry drafted the reconciliation with Vietnam treaty
- Last year, Kerry was the entire Congressional delegation to the Bali conference- he was extremely active in the negotiations before and at the the conference. Here is what Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, a member of the official delegation said(around 4 minutes in) :

"The fact that we had a treaty was significantly due to the fact that Senator Kerry was there. He was a virtual part of our negotiating team, without his day and night support and lobbying of the EU. we would not have gotten a treaty."
http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/04/in_defense_of_treehuggers.html

[democrattotheend]

19. They are both highly qualified, and both took risks in endorsing Obama when they did

It's going to be a really tough decision for Obama...I'm not sure what I would do in his position. I think he might be a little bit closer with Kerry on a personal level (they served together on Foreign Relations and seem to be pretty close) so that might tip the scales. Also, if it weren't for Kerry Obama would probably be a not very well known first-term senator right now, so in some ways Kerry can claim more credit than anyone else for his rapid rise. Of course, it's not just about loyalty or what they did for him on the campaign trail...Obama has made it clear that competence is his number one priority. But since they are both competent and qualified it probably comes down to the personal.

[karynnj]

20. It might all come down to things not related to foreign policy

Obama took nearly intact Kerry September small business legislation as part of his (Obama's) stimulatiuon proposal while he was campaigning. Obama also took Kerry's re-insurance of catastrophic health care costs as a core part of his health care plan. In addition to being designed in Kennedy's HELP committee, that will go to the Finance committee, where Kerry is the only non-Centrist Democrat. In addition, he is the only Finance committee member also on SFRC - so with all the international finance stuff he is the best one there. Kerry was called the go to guy on the environment by Boxer and the Senator with the best record by Gore. The current Democratic Iraq plan is in concept - Kerry/Feingold.

The point of that incoherent ramble - Kerry is going to be extremely important in pushing for Obama's programs on a broad range of issues. It may well be that much of Obama's agenda will be pushed by people like Durbin and Kerry rather than the Centrist leadership. It might be that especially after the efforts Kerry has made in the Senate since 2004 - nothing other than be President (which seems to have no future possibility) would be better than Kerry following in Teddy Kennedy's footsteps and becoming an extraordinary Senator. He has already done a huge amount.

The President, not the Secretary of State defines the foreign policy. Kerry as chair of the SFRC would have hearings and because he is respected by Obama, he will on that be one of those whose opinion is likely to be sought. Kerry was one of the people who was with him before the foreign policy debate and there were questions where Obama's answers were similar to answers Kerry had given in his many appearances as a surrogate. I do think they are friendly - and in addition, to those of us who noticed Michelle Obama on the Wednesday night of the convention - it was clear that she and Teresa were very happy talking to each other between speeches.

I entered these threads mostly because some (not you) have used them to diminish Kerry. It is idiotic to say of the man who easily won the Democratic nomination - whose strongest suit is foreign policy - that he is not up to being Secretary of state.

As to the risk each took - Kerry's risk was that the Clinton's would make life miserable for him - but that was what they were doing from 2004 until the end of 2006. There was a whisper campaign that Reid was angry because Kerry acted as if he was party leader (ironic with the current effort to make HRC Majority leader or SCJ), the ridicule over the Alito filibuster and over Kerry/Feingold. He was clearly not a favorite - and I'm sure had he endorsed her, he still would not have been high on her list. So, the biggest risk to him was that he anger many party Dems in MA, most of whom were with HRC - so he got a primary opponent - who he beat soundly.

Richardson's risk was that the Clintons would write him off. Unlike Kerry who was a high profile former nominee who is likely a Senator for life - if he wants it, Richardson might have needed the Clintons' goodwill. (He did endorse at a point where it was exrremely likely Obama was winning - where when Kerry actually told Obama he would endorse - and do it when Obama wanted - before the primaries started, it was far more likely HRC would win - sealing the election on SuperTuesday. Kerry's endorsement had far more impact - especially as his offer included being the very strong surrogate he was. Would Bill have gone off the rail without Kerry saying things like, "being a former President does not give you the right to abuse the truth"? If he didn't, would HRC have lost as badly in SC and had all these negative stories before SuperTuesday. (I know her number fell here in NJ from a super blowout to a blowout - had the original numbers held here, in MA, CA etc - it would have been over.)

[ecstatic]

4. If I'm not worried about hurt feelings, Richardson. If I am,

then Kerry.

[blm]

11. And if you want top mind on global terrorism, global financial crisis, and global water crisis?

Water wars will be dwarfing oil wars in the next decade.

[ddeclue]

5. Colin Powell or Madeline Albright...

They've already done the job and are well respected around the world and they aren't sitting Democratic Senators.

Doug D.

[slampoet]

10. Madeline Albright...would be a good choice again and she is looking young and energized.

[blm]

6. Whoever has a complete grasp of global terrorism, global financial crisis, global water issues

and knows how to craft a plan to get the nation OUT of Bush's wars and the integrity to prevent new ones.

Water issues and global financial issues will be PRESSING into the next decade.

[ellenfl]

8. wes clark should be national security advisor or secdef.

richard clarke should be brought back.

ellen

[Not the Only One]

9. Kerry.

I prefer as much of a break with the Clinton Admin as possible. The more new faces, the better.

[MadBadger]

12. Keep Kerry as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee

[MzShellG]

13. Susan Rice. nt

[TexasObserver]

14. Voted Richardson, but OK with Kerry, Clinton, and others, too.

[mvd]

15. I voted Kerry

I think he'd be perfect for this role. He just seems like a statesman.

[TornadoTN]

16. I voted for Hagel, but I love the others

There's something about having a Republican in that position that will drive the right-wing crazy.

But that's not to say anything about his own foreign policy acumen, which is substantial.

[Mass]

17. Any of the top three names, preferably Kerry. Not Holbrooke and not

a Republican. Remember that a SoS has to deal with treaties concerning trade, environment, healthcare, ... Do we want a free trader, anti-choice, anti-environment there.