Do you support Kerry for Secretary of State?

[ButterflyBlood]

I think he'd be a great pick.

[d_b]

1. yes

:hi:

[The Shadow]

2. I Vote No

John Kerry's value to America lay in the halls of the senate. We need John there, just as we need Hillary there.

[tblue]

3. He's one of many, many good choices. Wes Clark would be my #1 pick.

[krispos42]

4. No.

Let's stop gutting the Senate of experienced Dems. We've already lost Biden and have a shitload of newbies in there. And Teddy Kennedy may not finish out his term.

Governor Richardson would make an excellent choice. He's term-limited to January 2011 anyway.

[zeemike]

10. I agree with that.

But not because Richardson is my Governor, but because he has credibility on the world stage.
And it would mean a new era in our relations with Latin America, which I think could be a good thing for us.

[karynnj]

60. Kerry would be a more drastic change in our relationship with latin America

Kerry was the ONLY Senator willing to take on Reagan in 1985/1986 on his illegal arming of the Contras. He also was 100% against the School of Americas. In addition, Latin America is just one area - and not the most troubled one. Kerry sends a stronger message here, as in Asia because of his Vietnam stand. In the troubled ME and near East, Kerry has chaired the subcommittee overseeing that area for the last 2 years (since the Democrats took control). Kerry also has connections in Europe - his dad knew many of the early leaders of the EU.

Richardson being mostly hispanic is far less significant - has he taken similar stands for change in foreign policy? Kerry at 27 stood up against a paranoid President demanding just that - arguing that Vietnam become the place where American policy turned and the vets helped. S0S is NOT an affirmative action job.

Given the Richardson seen in interviews and debates in 2007/2008, he is no John Kerry. I can see arguments for Kerry as SoS and for staying in the Senate - he would be exceptional in either. I hope that if he wants it, he gets it - he deserves it more than anyone else, both by his competence and his contributions to Obama winning - which dwarf Richardson's very late endorsement.

This type of poll will be won be no one - everyone wanting anyone else, plus people not wanting to lose Kerry in the Senate will vote against it.

[zeemike]

64. The way I see it is

That New Mexico can afford to louse a Governor, especially now that we have 0 repukes in congress after the election than we can afford to louse a dem in the Senate.

And then there is that thing called Skull and Bones that really bothers me considering who else is a member of that secret society going back to Prescott Bush.
But sorry, that makes a difference to me. and the fact that he conceded the election less than 24 hours later with no attempt to check out the Ohio results.

But I will not make a judgment call on this, but I do have these concerns.

[karynnj]

67. Kerry fought the RW agenda when it was risky to do so

After college, if Kerry were following a "S&B" agenda would he have challenged:

- Nixon on Vietnam
- Reagan/Bush on the Contras (a good case could be made that without Kerry's investigation this could have been covered up)
- Bush on BCCI (where he also stood against Democratic power brokers and Jimmy Carter, who wanted to protect Bert Lance)

It is beyond idiotic that you ignore Kerry's entire career and look to the fact that he was picked to join a prestigious fraternity that selected people they thought would be high achieving. I would imagine that Vietnam was the most stronger force in who Kerry became. As to Ohio, it was the second slowest concession in modern history and the same lawyers who urged Gore to challenge told Kerry the numbers weren't there to make a case. There is STILL no clear cut proof that would change the Ohio result. You can't count votes not cast - as RFKjr did in his analysis which was not an attempt to make a case that could have been used, but to prove that more people went to the polls intending to vote for Kerry. Both Teresa and John Kerry spoke of suppression and election problems as early as late 2004 - and were ridiculed - Edwards, who NEVER explained what case he would have made - was quiet until he made it an issue - in the blogosphere only.

Had Kerry attempted to fight it, he would not have had party support - and without a clear case, he would have hurt the Democratic party as well as himself. Instead, he continued fighting via the johnkerry.com community - which in addition to others including obviously Dean who helped create the foundation for our 2006 and 2008 successes. If Obama had any doubts about Kerry, he would not have been given the final MTP closing arguments assignment.

MA will replace Kerry with a Democrat.

[zeemike]

75. I think beyond idiocy is pretty strong condemnation

For someone who has doubts about an association with a secret organization who's members have wreaked so much havoc in the world and our economy.
Perhaps Kerry is not one of them, I don't know...I don't know. And that is what bothers me.

[fedupinBushcountry]

88. Give me a break

You want Richardson for one reason only, he is from N.M. You know I am getting sick of stupid statements such as yours, you have no idea who Senator Kerry is and you are to lazy to find out. I am just sick of people bashing good Dems, it doesn't help us go forward with childish innuendos.

[zeemike]

89. Now give me a break

I am well aware of Kerry's history. I remember his testimony before the congress in the Nixon years, and I voted for him in 04.
But my wanting Richardson for SOS is more because I believe that relations with Latin America could be very important to our future and Richardson knows the language and culture.
Richardson has been a good Governor and I don't really want to louse him but NM is now a blue state and we could afford it.

[Unsane]

5. I'd rather see him chairing the SFRC.

[Essene]

86. Same here.

[regnaD kciN]

6. I'm not going to vote...

...because, as others have pointed out, there are quite a few great potential candidates for SoS, including Kerry. Deciding on just one right now will only lead to dissension if another (but equally good) candidate gets the nod. I'd prefer to sit back and let Obama make that choice.

[silverojo]

7. The way he puts his foot in his mouth all the time?

He'd start an international incident! :scared:

[globalvillage]

12. That's a baseless right wing talking point.

We need to stop spreading those.

[karynnj]

61. All those incidents were inconsequential and spun by an unforgiving media

Kerry was the very best advocate Obama had - if he really had a gaffe problem he never would have been the Obama choice for the MTP closing arguments. Kerry has had a very high profile internationally and he has NEVER had even the slightest problem.

Everything Kerry said from 2003 through 2008 has been closely monitored by Republicans (and fellow Democrats) for ways to spin them. There was NOTHING inherently wrong with his FULL comments on the $87 billion - the problem was a politically inartful summary. Everyone else has done the same - including Obama, who was exceptionally good. Both Clintons had more real gaffes in 2008 alone than Kerry had in the entire 5 year period.

[LittleClarkie]

71. All the time? Oh, a few high profile times maybe. But then so does the VP

and look where he is now.

Kerry has the experience and the knowledge and is on good terms with much of the world. I'd like to see that knowledge and experience put to good use.

[Lumpsum]

8. Richardson is looking to be the front runner for SoS. nt

[cooolandrew]

9. Bill Richardson carried New Mexico helped bring the Latin American vote, so he deserves it.

[karynnj]

62. Had he run a clean election in 2004, the Democrats would have run the state then too.

Just saying. Obama didn't need NM.

Without Kerry giving him the keynote speech there is no way he would have run - and without the Kerry January endorsement, Clinton likely would have won the nomination. Richardson even waited until after Texas - where his endorsement before that could have helped. In addition, how often did Richarson appear as a surrogate vs how often Kerry did? Kerry did a brilliant job framing McCain and slapping back both Clinton and McCain attacks.

[LittleClarkie]

73. If we're going to talk about who deserves it, which is not the most important criteria, imo

Kerry picked Obama to speak in 2004, which put Obama on the national stage. He endorsed Obama at a critical time, gave Obama his resources (email list and such), raised money, and was a good advocate for Obama in the media.

So he "deserves" it as much as anybody. But if we were going by what people "deserve" then Hillary would have been the nominee since it was her turn and she'd done more to "deserve" the nomination than Obama.

I'd hope people weren't being picked for high level cabinet positions based on what they "deserve". That's how we got people like "heck of a job" Brownie.

Tell me how Richardson would be the best man for the job based on his diplomatic skills and his foreign policy knowledge.

[Mudoria]

11. No

Richardson for SoS

[Beacool]

13. Couldn't care less,

but he'll have to fight Richardson for the post, the latter didn't betray a friendship of years to come up empty handed.

[MadBadger]

15. Still bitter...are you from a small town in PA?

[Beacool]

18. No, I don't like backstabbers.

:shrug:

[PresidentObama]

19. How did he stab anyone in the back? He supported whoever he pleased, the Clintons didn't own him.

I LOVE Bill and Hillary, and I voted for Hillary in the primary.

BUT...

You're silly if you think Richardson owed the Clintons anything. They helped Richardson, yes. But Richardson also helped them, and further he served his country incredibly. He was free to endorse whomever he pleased, and he did.

And finally: get over it.

Elections over. We won.

[Beacool]

25. And you're silly if you think I don't know what I'm talking about.

Why did Carville call him Judas? He never labeled anybody else who endorsed Obama with that epithet.

Richardson told Bill more than one time that he would either endorse Hillary or remain neutral. He then calls Obama right before leaving on vacation to tell him that upon his return he will endorse him, but not to announce it ahead of time. He didn't return Bill's phone calls and when he returned he didn't call his friend, instead he called Hillary to give her the news.

Some friend he turned out to be, I don't blame Bill for still refusing to speak to him.

[MadBadger]

21. I'm guessing ur not too fond of Bill Clinton then

Or how bout Hillary?

"At the democratic convention in Denver, there were no unpleasant surprises. Both Clintons gave stellar speeches that stirred the base, the true believers in the hall and millions of Democrats watching on TV. (It did not go unnoticed in Obamaland that Hillary, toward the end of the convention, reportedly assembled her closest advisers in a hotel room to discuss her prospects for 2012.)"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167905/page/2

[Beacool]

27. Big difference,

the Clintons and Obamas are not really friends. They are leaders in the party and Obama & Hillary were opponents who came together for the good of the party during the GE, but close friends they never were.

[MadBadger]

29. But Bill and Hillary are husband and wife. And when I think of backstabbing, I think of blowjobs!

[Beacool]

33. I guess that's your way of taking a discussion into the gutter.

I also guess that some of you have a low threshold of what you consider proper behavior among friends.

Whatever..........

[MadBadger]

35. You arent my friend, and I think your contributions to this board are PATHETIC

You are just a bitter bitter little Person.

[Beacool]

39. Of course I'm not your friend!!!

We were discussing Clinton and Richardson, not anybody else.

Too funny........

:eyes:

[MadBadger]

40. Oops, guess I read that wrong. Whatever. I could care less.

Stay bitter.

[Metric System]

36. Still obsessed with the Clenis?

[MadBadger]

37. No, not really. But this "backstabbing" thing is complete and utter bullshit

Especially from people who celebrate Bill Clinton

[Beacool]

41. Yeah, that was one quick way to hit below the belt.

I'm entitled to my opinion and my opinion is that Richardson behaved like a backstabbing weasel. If no one else agrees with it, that's fine. I hope that we still live in a free country and we can express our opinion, totalitarianism is such a bore.

:eyes:

[MadBadger]

43. LOL...below the belt. How is Bill not a backstabber for cheating on Hillary?

You claim Richardson is because he endorsed somebody else. Well then how is Bill not for CHEATING ON HIS WIFE. Or is that just fine and dandy in beacool's world?

[Beacool]

45. I wasn't talking to you.

I was talking to my buddy Metric.

Go pick a fight with someone else.

:P

[MadBadger]

46. Did I poke a hole in your crappy logic?

Guess so

[Sebastian Doyle]

26. Neither the world, nor the Democratic Party, revolves around the Clintons.

Richardson endorsed who he thought was the best candidate, and who he thought had the best chance of beating McCain. I'd say he chose wisely. Get over it.

[Beacool]

28. How patronizing!!

I don't need to get over anything. Richardson is a weasel in my book and will always be one.

[PresidentObama]

31. He didn't do shit. Get over it, we won--Obama won. Elections over n/t

[Beacool]

34. So, winning is all?

Honor doesn't count?

[Sebastian Doyle]

42. If you believe so much in honor

Then why are you so in love with the DLC?

Isn't that a MAJOR contradiction?

[Beacool]

47. Oh, please..........

All these people coming in defense of Richardson, would you all feel the same if the situation had been reversed and Richardson had betrayed Obama? I doubt it.

I'm a moderate, s I have no problem with the DLC.

[PresidentObama]

16. Sour grapes and revisionist history? Richardson stabbed NO one in the back n/t

[Beacool]

20. Oh yes he did.

You don't look at a friend in the eye and lie to him repeteadly. He'll always be a weasel in my eyes. Of course he'll be compensated and get some juicy post. Why else betray a friend if there's nothing for him in return?

[PresidentObama]

23. He didn't lie, he never told anyone he would endorse Hillary.

How would you know? You weren't there.

Further more, get over it. Elections over.

We won! Richardson and Kerry are highly qualified.

[Beacool]

32. I wasn't there.

But Bill always talks and he trusted Richardson when he told him that he would stay neutral or endorse Hillary. Political circles are just as gossipy as any other place and one finds out the gossip if one knows the right people.

[BeyondGeography]

51. Get help

[karynnj]

63. What bothers me there is when he endorsed

Had he endorsed Obama before Texas, when Clinton still had a remote chance of winning, I would believe he did it out of principle believing Obama was better. The fact is that while it was nice to get the Richardson endorsement when he did (it helped change the story), Obama was the far more likely winner then. To me it looks like he was just going with the winner.

In the case of Kerry, he endorsed when HRC was the favorite, knowing he would pay a cost in MA, where about 80% of the MA party Democrats were strongly behind HRC. Had HRC won, how do you think the Clintons would have treated him?

[Beacool]

66. Well, it's not the same.

There's a big difference between a colleague endorsing an opponent and a friend betraying one's trust. Kerry was not a friend, Richardson was and he lied to Bill. It's as simple as that. Anyone is free to endorse the candidate of their choice, but one doesn't betray friends.

You're right in your assessment, Richardson was looking out for Numero 1 and I'm sure that he will be nicely compensated through some juicy post of his liking. That's politics for you, as Truman once famously said, "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."

[karynnj]

68. It is politics for many, but I loved this article that showed for the better people it doesn't have

to be. (I suspect the Clintons had their similar group of genuine friends.)

In the days after he lost to Bush, Kerry said that he and his wife, Teresa, invited Tom Daschle and his wife, Linda, over to their Georgetown home for a cathartic dinner. Daschle, then the Senate minority leader, had just suffered a mind-numbing defeat of his own, losing his long-held South Dakota Senate seat to Republican John Thune.

“We’d both had tough ends to 2004 in similar ways, but it was just one of those nights in Washington that don’t happen enough these days,” Kerry said.

Kerry had another one of those nights two months later. As Bush bounced from one black-tie ball to the next to celebrate his second inauguration, the Kerrys settled in at their house for dinner with Kennedy and his wife, Vicki, and Chris and Jackie Dodd.


“You never forget those moments,” Kerry said. “The people who are there for you, it just leaves a lasting impression.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8811.html

We do know when he endorsed, which suggests that he was simply joining the team that was winning - maybe with the good intention of trying to signal an earlier end to the contest where Obama was extremely likely to get the highest number of regular delegates. No one knows what he actually told Bill and it may have been more ambiguous that Bill thought. (In a NYT article there was a comment that they were certain Kerry would stay neutral - though I could find dozens of Kerry book event appearances where he did not endorse but clearly (and consistently) said that there could come a time where he would - usually followed by very positive comments on Obama, pointing out Biden and Dodd were solid candidates and saying something positive about HRC. Then concluding that the differences between all the Democrats was small compared to the huge difference between them and all the Republicans.) The relevance of this is that it suggests that there was a LOT of aggressive Clinton arm twisting, leading to ambiguous comments to get them off their backs.

[NYC Liberal]

14. No...but only because I want to keep some of our lions in the Senate.

[PresidentObama]

17. Kerry would be a GREAT pick n/t

[camera obscura]

22. I selected "no" because I prefer Hagel and Richardson

Hagel for his longtime sensible views as outlined in his recent New Yorker profile. Richardson because of his experience and cultural knowledge. I won't be disappointed if it's Kerry though.

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. I wouldn't hate the idea, but I do think there are better candidates

Bill Richardson being the most obvious. Kerry was a strong surrogate for the campaign, so it's reasonable to guess he might be part of the cabinet, but I'd rather see him as Attorney General, where he could pick up where he left off in the 80's and bring down the Bush Crime Family once and for all. Because we cannot move this country forward while the criminals who were connected to everything that went wrong in the 20th century (and the first 8 years of this one) are still free to operate.

[Sensitivity]

30. Kerry should get if if he wants it. Most qualified by far. He is likely the last

of the nation's great patriots and with the kind of foreign policy experience needed to represent the Obama admin to the world

[Metric System]

38. Whatever Obama wants.

[Writer]

44. I promise not to refer to Treebeard the Ent

:hide:

[Mass]

48. LOL. Who cares? May be Obama could choose his SoS himself!!!

[rucky]

49. One of many excellent choices.

[MiniMe]

50. I don't want to raid the Senate for this one, we need our dem Senators

We just lost 2 of them. Richardson earned it.

[Mass]

52. BTW, 70 % of DU would not support a perfectly qualified Democrat as SoS./

Is it still Democratic Underground? Or are we in freeper Underground? I prefer Kerry or Rice (Susan), but if a thread asked if I support Richardson as SoS, I would say yes in a heartbeat.

[dailykoff]

53. Strange.

And yes, I support him 110%, but not using Dumbya math.

[Marrah_G]

55. I do not support it- yet I think he is qualified.

[karynnj]

65. This poll is designed to solict that result

Everyone who wants someone else votes no as do many who think Kerry could contribute more in the Senate.

There is NO ONE who has worked harder or done more to lead Democrats in the right direction in the last four years. With no media support and much ridicule and with the party leadership against him, he has led.

On Iraq, NO ONE is more responsible for the current unity of Democrats behind reasonably similar Iraq positions. He stood up with Feingold to make the case that without a clear deadline Iraqis will not make the tough decisions needed. In 2006, he was vilified in the press and HRC called it cut and run - 6 months later, she was saying the same things - almost echoing his words.

On Alito, this was the type of case that the gang of 14 was suppose to help us on - this was a battle we could have won - it was NOT that he was pro-life, it was the unitary President and other issues where he was extreme - and it is a lifetime appointment. The Democratic leadship showed no leadership here.

On global warming, Boxer has called Kerry the "go to" guy in the Senate. He was the entire Congressional delegation to Bali. Here is how his work before and during Bali was praiseed at an earth day SFRC hearing: Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, w member of the official US team, (around 4 minutes in) said:

"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

Kerry is an exceptional person, who many times in his career did not take the easy path when it differed from the right one. I do think that Richardson, Rice, Lugar etc are all qualified and capable - but they are not John Kerry.

[protect our future]

93. I am in total agreement with your post. n/t

[MadBadger]

78. I dont look at it that way. I support Richardson for it, so I dont support Kerry for it.

Its kinda like the Primary. If Obama were to nominate Kerry, Id be completely behind him.

[Marrah_G]

54. No I do not- As his constituant I am surprised he would consider it

We have our senior Senator dying. If Kerry were to leave this would leave our state with 2 inexperienced powerless senators.

As a citizen of Massachusetts I would feel VERY disappointed in him if he were to do this.

Besides. I think there are better people for the job and we need to stop talking about pulling from the congressional members .

We have a strong lead in congress. Why weaken it by taking the best and filling in the spots with newbies? It makes no sense.

[frickaline]

57. I am also his constituant and I would support it

because it is high time we season one of these "newbies", particularly when there are many good strong democrats around to show them the way. A lot of people might have considered the Junior Senator from Illinois a "newbie" until just recently. I am sure we can make some good choices here.

I understand your reasoning but really, is there ever a perfect time to bring in new folks?

[Marrah_G]

58. 2 at once. Not a great time.

I love my senators.

There are plenty of other very qualified people out there for the job without pulling from the Senate.

[Mass]

59. I agree. There are many people in MA who are well versed in the country and state

needs and could replace Kerry on a minute notice.

[karynnj]

69. He's not my Senator, but he is my favorite Senator (so I hope it is ok to comment)

If Obama is willing to offer him the job, he really has an embarrassment of riches to chose from. He may very well be the best person for Secretary of State, if Obama gives him the lead on working on the summits needed so badly. Kerry's own foreign policy would fit the changes that Obama has spoken of. If they are as close in substance as in rhetoric, Kerry would fit that job better than anyone. I don't see anyone else how could translate the difference that Obama is as President.

In addition, the work he did on Bali, that most MA papers didn't bother to even cover, makes him a great person for the ongoing work there. A member of the Bush team even said that without Kerry's work - which he did without the benefit of the position - was the reason there was a treaty we could sign. If you remember, the CW was that there would be no treaty.

Given how the world is, if Kerry is best person to deal with both foreign policy and global warming treaties, he might contribute more to the country taking this job (if offered). Doing so would be the riskier thing for him to do. His alternative staying in the Senate, heading the SFRC and contributing - as he has in the past - on many important issues is far safer. He is the best positioned people to be seen say 10 years from now as Kennedy is now - as one of the best legislators ever. As the country turns and the past is re-examined, he will likely get more credit for tough stands he has taken. In addition, as a Senator, he will remain the strong independent voice he has always been. Even an outstanding President may at some point need that type of push back - and in an Obama administration, it would likely happen mostly behind closed doors and only occasionally in public.

I trust Kerry to do what he often has - to make a decision based on where he things he can best serve the country. (I suspect that after seeing a Monday before election day Kerry rally in Barnstable (exerpts in the 3rd video on johnkerry.com) that he would miss the political side of his Senate job if he became SoS. He was clearly having a great time with that crowd. This was the first MA rally I ever saw him at.

He also is unique as a Senator with real activist roots which made his efforts with the johnkerry.com community and his Dkos (and other places) blogging far more successful than other Senators's efforts. These are all things that likely would not fit with the SoS role - campaigning being illegal. )

[protect our future]

92. Thanks karynnj, you said it beautifully. n/t

[JohnMcCant2008]

56. IMHO Bill Richardson is the man for the job. That being said, I trust Obama's judgement.....

[LittleClarkie]

74. Might I ask what you base that on?

Serious and honest question. What is it about Richardson that makes him the man for the job? What impresses you about him? I will admit he's impressive on paper, but less so in person.

[LittleClarkie]

70. I'm for it if he wants it.

I think he has the experience for the job

[Motown_Johnny]

72. it's up to the President, but my pick would be Richardson

[qwlauren35]

76. Health & Human Services?

I guess I didn't really "vet" him 4 years ago - I don't know the depth of his foreign policy experience. And, embarrassingly, I think he's a bit of a lightweight. Then again, I'm not sure who I want. Is Albright too old?

[ObamaKerryDem]

77. I voted yes. I'd love it for it to be him, or Richardson, or Hillary..or someone like that.. :) n/t

[Not the Only One]

79. YES.

He's capable and smart and has a diplomatic personality.

[AJH032]

80. You know what? I think Hillary's gonna get it

just a feeling

[alwysdrunk]

81. Sure, why not..

Europe will love him.

[ProSense]

83. He's admired and respected around the world.

Syria:





Pakistan:






Africa

[politicasista]

85. So much for the he's not respected around the world spin

Nice pics. :)

[RollWithIt]

82. No, only because I think Richardson deserves it... nt

[Dappleganger]

84. No, because I want him to stay in the Senate

[juajen]

87. I believe he's a ridiculous choice. Why him, when Wes Clark is

available? I don't like Richardson for this either. My God, how long is this unbelievably talented man going to be wasted by the dems. If I were him I'd switch to Republican Party.

[saltpoint]

90. Yes.

[protect our future]

91. John Kerry would be my choice.

He has done much more for Obama than merely introducing him in '04 and endorsing him for President.

He is more qualified on the world stage than any other Democrat being considered.

He is also loyal, perhaps more so than others.