Any reason Y Bill Richardson shouldnt be Secretary of State

[BigD_95]

This seams like a no brainer. The guy has the experience and Obama wants a Diverse cabinet and Richardson is Latino. Seems like a perfect match.

any reason not to?

[NewJeffCT]

1. I think he'd be an excellent SoS, however

Obama may have a few people higher on his own list - people that advised him throughout the campaign.

[marmar]

2. I have a feeling Bill Richardson will get a cabinet position .... which one I don't know.

Wasn't Kerry rumored as Sec of State?

[Essene]

9. Richardson deserves nothing less than SoS... and I think Kerry is a horrible choice

Richardson has done quite a lot and doesn't get the credit he deserves.

He's been Ambassador to the UN, Sec of Energy and a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. Anything less than Sec of State is an insult, especially since he's a minority and a very charismatic guy known for executive competence.

Kerry?

I have no idea why folks keep mentioning him for SoS. He's been a major senator on foreign relations for sure, but he's not the right person for the job. Personally, I don't see why you'd pick him over Richardson. He also brings the baggage of 2004.

[karynnj]

54. What baggage of 2004?

Other countries are not as stupid as Americans who listened to the SBVT. The fact is that Kerry has FAR more extensive experience than Richardson. Richardson was UN Ambassador for at most 1 1/2 years (He moved to Energy in July 1998 - he started some time in 1997) Before that he was a Congressman, who in 1996 did some good foreign policy work - but appears to have been mostly involved in Native American issues before that.

After Bush took over, here is what he did:

"Richardson also joined Kissinger McLarty Associates, a "strategic advisory firm" headed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Clinton White House chief of staff Mack McLarty, as Senior Managing Director.<18> He also served on the corporate boards of several energy companies, including Valero Energy Corporation and Diamond Offshore Drilling. He withdrew from these boards after being nominated by the Democratic Party for governor of New Mexico, but retained considerable stock holdings in Valero and Diamond Offshore.<19> He would later sell these stocks during his campaign for President in 2007, saying he was "getting questions" about the propriety of these holdings, especially given his past as energy secretary, and that it had become a "distraction".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson#U.S._Congressman

It looks like he has more baggage than Kerry, who has very little. Internationally, his opposition to Vietnam as a young man is a PLUS, not a negative - as is his opposition to the Contras. You may want to consider that those actions - which hurt in the US to some degree, make him someone consistent with a change in foreign policy.

[politicasista]

55. Yep. Europeans are really smart people n/t

[Essene]

87. Who would you rather have as a SURROGATE?

I'd rather have Kerry on his own in the Senate...

I'd rather have Richardson as Obama's international PR and diplomatic face.





And frankly, im not interested in the "richardson is a neocon bushcon enemy of the state" argument that it seems the 3 kerry diehards here want to have.

[blm]

98. I'd rather have the guy who HAS the close relationships with other world leaders and

who is STEEPED in knowledge about the matters that are most pressing internationally with an eye to progressive solutions AND history.

And the one who is known around the world for integrity on issues of terrorism, international banking, and environmental issues and even helped lay out most of the foreign policy path that Obama has adopted.

[Essene]

102. i didnt know Kerry was so close to all the world leaders (lol)

[karynnj]

133. He is close to very many

He has connections to Europe that extend back to when his dad knew many of the top people who formed the EU. When Brown came to office, it was said that he was close to many Americans, but closest to Kerry. He was partially educated in Europe and part of his mom's family was in France and England.

He is chair of the near east and south Asia subcommittee and has regularly visited those countries, he previously had Asia - so he knows those people. Through the drug and terrorism committee, he became very familiar with Latin America. (In fact back when Kerry was still possibly running - one of the MA papers made fun of Romney who took off to visit Iraq and Afghanistan during a major MA flood. They pointed out that he was not doing his job and spending 4 hours in Afghanistan was not impressive given that Kerry and his wife the week before had hosted a dinner for Karzi whne he was in DC.

24 years on the SFRC - for someone with Kerry's interests and intellect mean he knows very many people.

[blm]

143. Ever hear of Kyoto Accord? That you didn't know about Kerry's relationships with other leaders, even

on something as well known as Kyoto points to your level of awareness on world leadership issues. Who has been meeting with Syria's president to come up with progressive solutions to their problems with Bush policy? Who along with Joe Biden sought protection for Bhutto?



You don't know these things because you haven't been paying attention and are still stuck in the Clinton administration as if he assembled the best team possible - he didn't.

[karynnj]

128. If you are including me, don't

I did not tie him to Bush
I did not say he was a neo-con
I did not say he was an enemy of the state.

Nor do I see "3 Kerry diehards" doing that - in fact - I can't find any!

[crossroads]

121. Well said... I agree!

[blm]

59. Global terrorism, global BANKING crisis, global water issues and climate change - YOU don't KNOW why

Kerry would be considered? Sheesh. have you read any serious government reports of the last 35 years?

[karynnj]

64. Kerry is better

Many people are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He did a terrible job as Secretary of Energy on the "espionage crisis" - that became a negative for the Clinton administration, not to mention the scientist was treated horribly. (Would the scientists have been treated as he was if he was not a minority? I guess Chinese counts less than hispanic. ) He was ambassador to the UN for at most a year and a half.

Being a minority is not a credential.

As to charismatic - one of these two men EASILY won the nomination one year, while the other never won a single state.

I could say that anything less than SoS is an insult to Kerry, who is a FAR more charismatic guy, who is a genuine American hero. He in fact is the one who got far less credit for many things he did that were extremely risky and when successful stopped bad things, but led to NO recognition because they exposed a dark underside to our country. (Contras, BCCI)

There is no baggage from 2004 - frankly, the rest of the world doesn't care how good a swiftboat captain Kerry was and intelligently believe the official record. He is very highly respected. His 1971 actions made him exceptionally successful as a representative to Asia - where his actions are respected.

[Wetzelbill]

11. yes Kerry was

Kerry would be a good choice too. Plus I'm sure Mass would elect another Dem in his place, so his senate seat wouldn't be much of a risk in letting go.

[blondeatlast]

3. No. I'll have no problems either way if he is or isn't. He's beyond qualified,

has the chops and cred--but Obama may want someone with a different take.

Either way, I see no way the US loses on this one.

[bdamomma]

4. I hope Richardson gets in too.

I wonder if Joe Wilson would accept any position if he was asked.

[Lumpsum]

5. It's between him and Kerry. nt

[blm]

6. Syria and Pakistan have been set up to explode...is Richardson the BEST bet to STOP IT?

Does he have strong relationships with leaders in those countries and in that region to hit the ground running?

[Essene]

10. The situation with Syria and Iran is completely overblown. Pakistan is a real issue...

Iran has been bluffing and playing "chicken" with Bush. If Obama plays the diplomacy right, there will be fast and massive concessions there along with an easing of tensions with Russia.

Syria has been in intense dialog with the USA and Israel for quite some time. I wouldn't make much out of that border incident last month. The primary issue there is Lebanon's stability and the support of Hezbollah. That won't be resolved any time soon and can only be resolved by the Lebanese.

[blm]

13. The question is about Richardson's knowledge of that region and its leaders.

Does he have a full understanding of the region's problems and the trust of its leaders? After all, what did many of those leaders think of Bill Clinton's consistent support of Bush's decisions in that region? Maybe they believe that it is time to move past Bush-Clinton-Bush way of dealing with that region's policy?

[Essene]

18. The SoS job isn't about being an expert on every region in the world...

They are the foreign policy and diplomatic "face" of the President's administration.

As for your premise about Bill Clinton sharing Bush's policies, I entirely disagree. Clinton came as close as anybody has in terms of solidifying a peace deal among Israel and the Palestinians. As far as i am concerned, that peace process was destroyed by Ariel Sharon in late September 2000 when he incited violence by marching on the Temple Mount during a break in talks.

The challenge for Obama is to demand that both sides stop making excuses, stop making impossible demands of the other side, and stop relying on fear to bolster their positions. He should plainly demand that his involvement in a peace process requires complete sincerity from both sides towards a FINAL agreement.

As for Syria and Iran, the big piece is undoing the damage of the Bush admin.

During low-level, unofficial diplomacy... Iran allegedly offered to Bush:

recognition of israel

halt of their nuclear program

cutting support of hezbollah, hamas and militias in iran

Obama needs somebody who can read all the dynamics in the region and maintain credibility among all the players, without being a fool.

Somebody like Richardson is ideal. He's smart, charismatic, a minority and doesn't have negative baggage.

[ProSense]

25. "Obama needs somebody who can...maintain credibility among all the players, without being a fool."

Is this supposed to disqualify Kerry?

Richardson is a good choice, but it's completely ludicrous to try to claim that Kerry isn't one of the most highly qualified people for the position in terms of his knowledge, experience and rapport with leaders around the world. He is highly respected and brings knowledge and experience on a broad range of issues to to the table.

[politicasista]

39. **crickets** n/t

[Essene]

43. Of course that doesnt disqualify kerry... but he'd be more of a distraction imo

He's one of the most outspoken foreign policy senators over the last 20 years. SoS is not about being the most expert.

He's most known globally for his loss against Bush.

The media would be spending too much time looking at his past & past statements. The SoS job is to be a face for Obama & the USA, nothing else. Foreign diplomats and leaders need to be 100% clear that the SoS represents the Obama administration, not the Party and not themselves.

That is where Colin Powell failed. The world knew he didn't really speak for the President. Condi Rice is about the same. Smart people who were seen more as token party appointments in an insincere administration. Obama needs somebody who can be a great spokesman while quietly getting hard work done.

Kerry is brilliant, but I do not think he's the appropriate person right now.

That's not Kerry's fault. It's him basically being over-qualified for the task.

He belongs as a leading elder in the Senate.

[ProSense]

45. "He's most known globally for his loss against Bush."

You keep repeating that as if it has any relevance.

Kerry has met with numerous world leaders since the 2004 election, and was the only US rep at the Bali post-Kyoto negotiation. He is one of the most respected people on the world stage.

[politicasista]

47. But he don't smile like Obama

He got foot in mouth disease! :rofl: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Essene]

61. Of course it is relevant

And so is the respect he has among LEADERS who know a lot more than that.

But what I'm saying is true.

The job is not about being merely the smartest guy in the room and being respected by like-minded world leaders.

It's a PR job, a diplomacy job and one that requires somebody with strong EXECUTIVE experience... and who is seen as a trusted SURROGATE of the President.

Kerry is undeniably brilliant. That's not the issue... although that's about all i hear from the "only kerry" diehards.

[karynnj]

79. Under that criterion, Richardson is out - because he didn't make it past

the second primary.

The fact is that the SOS will often be the person negotiating for the President This means that they need the skill Kerry has often showed - as the Bush people say he did at Bali - of being able to see all the sides and help work out solutions that everyone could live with. In the Congress, Kerry (with Snowe) were behind the negotiations that resulted in the first increase in CAFE standards in 2 decades. You forget, Kerry grew up as the son of a diplomat, who he cited as a major influence on his foreign policy views.

As to surrogate, did you miss how well Kerry did that job. He was better than others, framing McCain perfectly and speaking of everyone moving to OBAMA's positions of Iraq, terrorism, NK, Afghanistan etc where in each case, these were all his positions first. This showed a discipline and sense of purpose that is rare in politics. (I can list MANY who failed to do this.)

[Essene]

85. Ambassador to the UN. Cabinet Member. Governor of a State. Nobel Peace Prize nom. A latino

Let me repeat that.

Ambassador to the UN. Cabinet Member. Governor of a State. Nobel Peace Prize nom. A latino.

Folks can hype Kerry on many fronts, but that doesn't make Richardson less qualified for the position. The SoS position is very much about being a public relations surrogate abroad, not just policy advice to the President.

And i find it a real stretch to equate Kerry's surrogate task in a domestic context with the same task in a foreign context. I think Kerry is absolutely brilliant and otherwise capable of doing the job. I just think he'd be much more of a distraction than a help. I'd much rather see him lead in the Senate, frankly, than become an Obama surrogate.

He undeniably needs to be a top adviser to Obama on all foreign policy.

But all i really hear from the "only kerry" advocates is that he's super knowledgeable.

[karynnj]

100. SoS is not just a PR job

As to the "only Kerry" - you have no room to speak as it seems you are a "only Richardson"

Ask yourself who was the best surrogate Obama had. Kerry was incredible as a surrogate - far better than ANYONE was for him or Gore. (The only one who came close was McCasgil)

Yes, I know Richardson has a longer list of jobs - because he was many of them for ONE year. Would you have found Kerry's resume better, had Kerry opted to leave the Senate and become Governor of the state? (I think having current foreign policy expertise is good)

[Essene]

105. it's a SURROGATE foreign relations position

And you know that Kerry's being a surrogate on foreign policy during this campaign is not the same as being one abroad.

If Obama picked Kerry, i'd be FINE with that.... but i think it would undermine Obama and I think Kerry would be more useful in the Senate.

I think Richardson is the better candidate of the two, but I also believe there could be other outstanding choices out there.

[blm]

112. HAHAH....Kerry already repped Obama overseas when he set up Obama's trip to Mideast

and Europe. A trip where he was very well received by the world leaders set up to meet him. YOU really don't GET that, do you? You cannot wrap your brain around the FACT that Kerry would EXCEL at any job related to foreign policy, and he brings a depth of historic knowledge and an integrity rarely seen in government officials.

[Essene]

117. and as a Senator, he'd likely continue to do such things

Flame away...

Nobody is questioning Kerry's skills, integrity or expertise.

[blm]

119. YOU do. Especially when you claim he has negative baggage in the world - a claim MADE UP by you

because you thought it would help your case against him.

[karynnj]

154. Exactly true - where in fact, it is Richardson who has been said to have baggage

NOT Kerry.

[blm]

50. Baloney...still. Obama ADOPTED many of Kerry's positions and trusted Kerry's voice more than

any other spokesperson on foreign policy THROUGHOUT the campaign. You think that happened in a vacuum? And Kerry is a HERO in many regions and HIGHLY respected by many world leaders - many of who he has developed personal relationships spanning DECADES.

Even his wife Teresa worked on international issues and diplomacy for years at the UN - international health and environmental issues have been her calling card for DECADES.

You really sound underinformed when you speak of Kerry. he's been internationally known and respected for decades before he ran for preident - better known and regarded around the world than by a generation of Democrats who only became aware of politics and government under Bill Clinton's Bushprotecting administration where they were charmed into ignoring their nation's actual historic record and the Bush's fascist role in that record.

[Essene]

58. So? Should we appoint BILL CLINTON??? Please think about the point.

[blm]

65. No - Bill Clinton sides with BushInc on foreign policy. He proved his disloyalty to the

American people when he worked AGAINST honest Democrats and deep-sixed serious international matters just to protect Bush and powerful cronies like Jackson Stephens, and the Dubai and Saudi royals.

Kerry is an HONEST man of integrity who always put the rights of the citizens FIRST and especially their right to open and accountable government.

If you cracked open the National Security Archives once in a while you'd know this by now.

[Essene]

70. You dont think Bill Clinton is qualified to be SoS???

[blm]

76. I think he deserves to go down in history as Bush's lefthand man.

No way should he be a SoS in any Dem administration that purports to have a progressive and honest agenda in the world.

[blm]

27. Baloney - there is no negative baggage of Kerry anywhere in the world - your premise is BS.

And Clinton DID stick with GHWBush's policies. Clinton sided with protecting Bush's illegal dealings around the world and looked the other way as they continued.

And Clinton WAS the best known Dem publicly supporting Bush and defending him vigorously for his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war from 2001-2006.

Your US media driven claim of negative baggage doesn't PLAY anywhere else in the world - especially those regions where Kerry is considered a statesman, a legend, and a hero.

[Essene]

33. "He's the guy who lost to Bush in 2004" = negative baggage

The SoS has to be seen as a loyal cabinet member who can both speak for the President and also garner personal loyalties abroad.

The world is cynical about politics and EXPECTS the senior elders to be granted prestigious party positions. That's exactly the opposite message to the one Obama needs to send. Kerry is brilliant. If anything, he's overqualified for the SoS position. Every time the foreign press would mention his name, however, it would be framed with "he lost to bush in 2004."

Picking him is more a matter of party loyalty and seniority... not a matter of finding the best fit for this moment.

[ProSense]

36. BS,

That has nothing to do with the Secretary of State position. Most world leaders believe Kerry was the better choice.

Richardson hasn't run a winning campaign for the nomination you would also have to qualify that as baggage.

[Essene]

40. "Richardson hasn't run a winning campaign for the nomination"

So, we oughta support appointments based on how well they do in elections? It's affirmative action for election losers?

Richardson has been a successful EXECUTIVE in many capacities. He's been Ambassador to the UN under Clinton.

Obama needs to pick somebody who best fits the job's task at this time.

You can insist that "most world leaders believe Kerry is better" without evidence, but I think most people would respect that you don't pick somebody most known globally as having lost to Bush... as the face to the world. That is NOT to say Kerry isn't brilliant or qualified. I think he's arguably overqualified on foreign policy... so much so that media would spend more time looking at his own speeches and writings rather than seeing him as Obama's spokesman.

Richardson has been an Ambassador. He's a younger latino guy who won't send mixed messages and knows how to run a bureaucracy.

[ProSense]

41. "So, we oughta support appointments based on how well they do in elections?"

See your previous comment for a note of hypocrisy.

[Essene]

46. It's not hypocritical whatsoever... since Richard's experience is as an Ambassador...

The issue is how well the appointment fits the position and reinforces Obama's foreign policy.

Like it or not, Kerry comes with baggage.

He's the failed party candidate in 2004 and most of the world is used to seeing party elders raised up to political appointments that they really aren't qualified for. He's spoken extensively on foreign policy for a long, long time.

The position isn't about being the smartest guy in the room.

You may seen hypocrisy there since you've noted that Richardson failed to win the nomination and thus is "equally" a failed candidate, but I think you know how poor of an equivocation that is... especially when he's been Ambassador to the UN, a Cabinet Member and a successful Governor.

[ProSense]

49. What are you talking about?

He's the failed party candidate in 2004 and most of the world is used to seeing party elders raised up to political appointments that they really aren't qualified for. He's spoken extensively on foreign policy for a long, long time.

That doesn't even make sense, but are you claiming Kerry isn't qualified?

[politicasista]

53. Same people who thought Obama should reject Kerry's endorsement

or that it was the Kiss of Death. Obama (and Kerry) got the last laugh on that deal.

:rofl:

[Essene]

57. Imagine Obama appointing Bill Clinton as Secretary of State....

You can argue about how qualified they are until blue in the face, but hopefully you might see how somebody like Kerry (or Clinton) is basically OVER-qualified due to their history. They would send a confusing message and undermine the impression that they are a subordinate to Obama.

Kerry has spoken extensively on foreign relations and is best known as the party's failed candidate in 2004. If he was SoS, it would be more of a distraction than helpful. Kerry's knowledge and insight can be garnered by Obama without having to put him in such a position. I'd like to think Kerry understands that better than all of us.

I'd rather see Kerry as the leading voice in Congress on foreign policy, personally.

The SoS has to "ring" a certain way internationally... and we need that "ring" to be 100% supportive of Obama's administration.

[ProSense]

60. Wow!

You can argue about how qualified they are until blue in the face, but hopefully you might see how somebody like Kerry (or Clinton) is basically OVER-qualified due to their history. They would send a confusing message and undermine the impression that they are a subordinate to Obama.

Now he's over-qualified?

[Essene]

62. Yes, i've been saying that all along...

way to read what you respond to... sigh

[karynnj]

110. No one thinks that - YOU listed the main reason for Kerry as "he lost 2004"

I doubt if Lee, a reputable scientist, was impressed with how he ran the bureaucracy. That was very badly handled and likely was due to him being Chinese - a country that the SoS has to deal with.

Many Secretary of State are considered more skilled in foreign policy than their President. Have you ever heard of the Marshall plan - that was the brainchild of Truman's SoS. Kissinger certainly was better than Ford and possibly Nixon. Shultz was far better than Reagan, Cyrus Vance was FAR better than Carter. These are all men who were known for their own "speeches" They were picked because they were in line with the President - for the most part. The President of course signs off on all the decisions and the Secretary of state serves at his pleasure.

This is not a "PR job" - the person that gets it will be doing the type of shuttle diplomacy that Vance or Baker did. He might also lead in the continuations of Bali.

[karynnj]

93. Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding of most countries

the norm in a vast number of countries is that the loser in the election becomes the "highly esteemed leader of the opposition". In Kerry's case, most of the world actually wanted him to win. You also ignore that Richardson did not make it even close to as far. The fact is that Kerry is given MORE respect than other Senators because he is seen as leader because he was the standard bearer for one of the parties. I've read the international press at times and I can assure you that both Kerry and Gore (even before the movie) have always been treated seriously. If the elections are mentioned, it is positively in that they were narrowly defeated.

"party loyalty" ?? You say he is brilliant - then say it is just seniority, having previously said that Richardson has more experience. You claim a guy who did get as many as 80,000 people in rallies is not charismatic, but a person who never polled above 5% is? Why not, simply say the truth? You don't like Kerry.

I frankly do not know if Kerry would prefer to stay in the Senate, but I hope that if he wants the job as Obama defines it he gets it. There is no one I can think of who has worked harder for Obama these last 2 years, the Democratic party, or the country. In addition, Teresa, is an amazing asset - as she was when she accompanied him to South Africa.

[Essene]

115. no need to get personal... let me explain that point more carefully

You don't know me... and you ironically just wrote "I've read the international press at times." Let's avoid ad hominems, ok?

Here is how i see it.

Most democracies abroad have some type of political parliamentary system where the working "government" is lead by the party leadership. This is one of the reasons folks abroad often misunderstand American politics and government, because they tend to think the President is basically the ruler of the Party. They don't appreciate the power of the states nor the power of the Congress, independent of these Party entities. Our political parties are not as nearly monolithic as they are abroad (or as

In that context, the Party Leaders constantly garner political posts and the equivalent cabinets are effectively "all the king's men" in terms of top tier Party elders. Our system is not like that. Sure, there are political appointments and favors cashed in but the "government" isn't typically formed out of cronyism, as USA loves the appearance of meritocracy above all else... even in politics.

Folks abroad wouldn't be surprised to see Bill Clinton put in his cabinet because they are used to this kind of stuff, including where the party's leader is trying to control the different factions of the party by granting them prestige positions.

That's not how we do things in the USA... and Obama needs to send a clear message.

Kerry is OVER-qualified. Appointing him SoS would be like giving the position to one of the Clintons. It would be seen abroad as typical cronyism where party seniority comes before merit. Furthermore, it would undermine the sense that this person is in fact a surrogate to the White House... rather than another face of the Party.

I dont expect everybody to see this point... but it's a valid point.

[karynnj]

126. ad hominems??? there is none

This is weird - you concede MY point that Kerry is accorded respect because of his run (and who he is). You then turn around and imply it is not the American way to do this. The fact is Kerry is a highly respected person and HE and they will know that it is the President who has the final decision on foreign policy - no matter who the SoS is.

[Essene]

131. oy veh... the point is that party politics are understood differently abroad

For somebody just posturing about knowledge of "most foreign countries," I find it strange that you'd entirely miss my point about how party politics are understood abroad. Folks see the Presidency as the current leader of the winning Party in the USA (wrongly), and their analogy is how cabinets abroad are filled with the top Party officials... having little to do with their experience, qualifications, etc. It's pure cronyism.

Regardless of Kerry's actual qualifications... he's known primarily as the Party candidate in 2004... and will be seen abroad as something like an equal... or a contender... in the Party leadership. It would be like appointing Bill Clinton. A distraction from Obama's power and message. If you are so aware of foreign nations and foreign politics, you'd understand the point I am making there...

You entirely missed the point. Entirely. Completely.

[karynnj]

135. Or you have no real point

The fact is these people KNOW Kerry. They KNOW he has experience and the qualifications. They likely KNOW this more than they would initially KNOW this with Richardson who has ONE (1) year as an Clinton appointed UN Ambasador.

Here is how your arguments all sound:

"He can't because the sky is blue"
"The sky is not blue, it is actually grey today"
"Well yeah, but he can't because the sky is grey."

The fact is that you have stated:
- Kerry is brilliant
- Kerry has extensive foreign policy experience (which I add is current, where Richardson's isnt)

I add to that
- Kerry is loyal to Obama
- Kerry is a very decent public servant whose goal has always been serving country
- Kerry was a brilliant surrogate this year - never speaking of himself when he should have spoken of Obama

Put these together and Kerry is as qualified as anyone - and more qualified than Richardson.

[blm]

142. It's a valid point in a world where INTERNATIONAL leaders are as dumb as some Americans who swallow

that crap.

The world's leaders have known about Kerry and his work AGAINST the corruption of government in his own country and in many of theirs for DECADES.

Only dumbass, underinformed Americans, including a number of low information Democrats would see Kerry as a 'crony' appointment - especially after the Bush-Clinton-Bush decades.

[karynnj]

44. In that case, the Chair of the SFRC subcommittee overseeing Pakistan

who was been concerned about Pakistan at least since he investigated BCCI in the 1980s and early 1990s is a far better choice than anyone else.

Kerry gave Bush 1 and Clinton a final report when his committee ended. The number issue that he said needed further investigation - that more had to be done to determine how A Q Khan, with BCCI funding, had slipped under the radar and had been able to violate the non proliferation laws to develop Pakistan's bomb. That was in 1992.

[BOSSHOG]

7. the only reason I can think of: Wesley Clark

[dmallind]

8. No - unless Obama is a loyalty freak

Apparently Kerry - who endorsed him - has interest in the job. Richardson ran against him.

But the latter would be a better choice given their respective careers, and I hope the era of loyalty above all ins political calculus is over soon.

[blm]

17. Given their careers? Tracking global terror networks, unraveling international banking crimes,

crafting language of Kyoto and leading global climate change delegation, normalizing relations with Vietnam, uncovering illegal wars in Central America, exposing CIA drugrunning, IranContra, Iraqgate, S&L crisis, BCCI and many other matters on top of 24 years on Senate Foreign Relations Committee just isn't much of a career, eh?

C

Wouldn't want a man certainly qualified to be president to be in a position as SoS, eh? And certainly wouldn't want one of the top progressive minds in DC dealing with so many crucial areas he has the best credentials across the board of ANY lawmaker, like global terrorism, global financial crimes, global climate change and global water issues, and matters of war and peace now, would we?

[Essene]

23. Ambassador to the UN and Nobel Peace Prize nomination are so minor, huh?

It's not a question of whether Kerry is a smart guy. And it's pretty silly to turn this into a tit-for-tat debate about who has done more amazing stuff. Richardson is no chump and has done some impressive stuff as well. Kerry is a true classy statements, obviously, on his own right.

He's not the right person for this job.... in this administration.

I personally would rather see Kerry be an elder stateman, brilliant mind in the Senate than as a Cabinet member.

[dmallind]

29. I think you took that teh wrong way

I have no problem with Kerry nor do I think he has a thin career per se. A fine man all round. I would not be mortified if he were SoS at all. I just think Richardson is a better choice and has a more rounded CV for that particular job, that's all. It's like deciding Princeton is a better school than Cornell for a particular field of study - doesn't mean Cornell's bad at all or even not better in other areas.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. When Richardson dropped out he endorsed Obama over Hillary however

But it really makes no real difference to me. I'd support either of them for the job although I like Kerry and think that he has served Obama well during the campaign and has the right ideas about diplomacy and international relations. It sucks that we weren't able to have had him as President during the past 4 years.
I don't really know much about Richardson or what his qualifications are for the job. I'm sure he wouldn't be considered if he didn't have some but I believe the post he held in the Clinton administration was Energy Secretary.
At any rate, I won't question Obama's judgment regarding his cabinet picks unless he appoints a lot of current and former Bush (mis-)administration officials to his administration, something that I'm NOT expecting him to do (Gates is the only official that I'm aware of that is under consideration)

[karynnj]

42. Your comparison of their careers is biased

Richardson appears to have had some international experience as a Congressman in 1996 and in 1997 until July 1998 was UN ambassador. He then became the energy secretary. (He may have done more earlier on foreign policy in the Congress, but it seems from his online biographies he was mostly doing good work for native Americans.) (At most, he has 14 years in Congress and 1 to 1 1/2 as UN ambassador. He also poorly managed the espionage crisis when he was at the Department of Energy.)

Kerry's been a member of the SFRC for 24 years - up to the present - where he has been a very respected Senator. He has FAR greater international recognition. In addition, he has articulated his foreign policy views in a coherent philosophical way since college. Madeline Albright chose to include his 1966 (no typo) speech as an early example of a foreign policy that tries to look at the world without looking just through an American cultural lens and which expressed the idea that understanding other cultures is essential.

Kerry also came within a small number of votes to be President. Richardson was AWFUL in his MTP interview and unimpressive in most of the debates. Kerry is a man of far greater stature - if he does want the position, Obama would be crazy not to give it to him.

[Wetzelbill]

12. Richardson, Kerry, Wes Clark , Richard Holbrooke

All excellent choices, imho.

[Thrill]

14. Because Kerry wants it. And I personally think he probably feels he owes Kerry more

But both would be great.

[Motown_Johnny]

16. I hope he does not make the decision based on political debts.

that sounds like cronyism to me

[blm]

21. Given Kerry's career and credentials, why on earth would anyone even CLAIM cronyism?

If you can name one person with stronger creds ACROSS the board on serious issues like global terrorism, global financial crimes and crisis, global climate change and global water issues, as well as someone with the ability to craft international treaties and accords like Kyoto and even military withdrawal plans such as Iraq withdrawal.....please name that person.

[Motown_Johnny]

26. I don't want to argue with you, but if the decision is based on political debts it is cronyism

and Richardson's resume is more impressive IMO

Not just in the Legislature (which he was) but has already held a cabinet position as well as being ambassador to the U.N. and chief executive of a state

[blm]

35. Horsepoo - there is no way Richardson's done more for this nation and the world than Kerry.

You only see job titles - you don't factor in ACCOMPLISHMENTS and how those accomplishments IMPACTED our nation's actual historic record of the last 4 decades.

[Essene]

51. Ambassador to the UN & Cabinet Member & Governor of a State & Nobel Peace Prize nominee & a latino

Kerry is brilliant and all, but you need to show some respect to Richardson and appreciate how well he'd fit in Obama's cabinet.

[blm]

90. Why? Obama didn't tap Richardson to make his case in 2008 on foreign policy - he tapped KERRY

and FYI, it was Kerry who went ahead of Obama and set up his triumphant tour of Mideast and Europe last summer before the convention.

Gee - now why would Obama think Kerry was the right man to help him do that?

Richardson is an OK guy - he doesn't have the depth of knowledge to deal with terrorism and international banking crisis and global water issues that Kerry has - no one does. And certainly doesn't have the DEPTH ACROSS THE BOARD on these issues.

I don't even WANT Kerry to be SoS as I think having the top advocate for open government is IMPORTANT to our nation's survival as a democracy right now - he's been the BIGGEST obstacle to full-on fascism for three decades now, despite the DC powerstructure's planted pr campaigns against him over the years - you know...like that he has 'negative baggage' and other corpmedia spin and lies. BUT....he would still be the MOST qualified person for SoS position.

[Essene]

28. actually, you sound like you're related to Kerry =D

Bill Richardson is better qualified for this position.

Yes.

Kerry has incredible experience and saying that isn't to take anything from him. If anything, he's perhaps overqualified for the position. More to the point, i just don't think you put somebody best known for LOSING AN ELECTION TO BUSH on your damn cabinet.

You go with the successful Executive guy who's been an Ambassador, who has run an entire State, who's been a candidate for the Nobel Prize... who is a minority and a very strong guy on foreign policy.

My only concern would be if there's some untold story about him failing as Ambassador.

[blm]

31. You sound like you need corpmedia to tell you who's on first. Richardson couldn't pull off a good

showing in a primary race, let alone try and face BushInc at its MOST POWERFUL in 2004.

If elections are your criteria then Richardson would be far down on the list....but...they aren't...you're just hiding behind an election where Clintons, Biden and other best known Democrats at the time sided publicly with Bush on the decisions he was making on terrorism and Iraq war while Kerry was left fighting on his own because of the dirty but wellknown secret that NOBODY in Dem powerstructure believed 2004 could be won, so they took the cowards' way out and sided with Bush on the most crucial matters in that election. Kerry won all his matchups - RNC had to steal that election for Bush and DNC sat on their hands for four years and let them do it.

[Essene]

37. yes, how corporate media of me...

....to argue that a Kerry appointment would be seen as cronyism abroad...

...and that the latino Governor who's also been a UN Ambassador and a Nobel Peace Prize candidate... would be a better pick.

Nobody is trying to take anything away from Kerry. You just need to start showing Richardson some respect.

[ProSense]

38. "Kerry appointment would be seen as cronyism abroad" BS. n/t

[blm]

56. I respect Richardson and his resume for what itis...and it certainly DOESN'T trump Kerry's record

across the board. The INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY respects Kerry and has regarded him a hero in many regions for his INTEGRITY and doggedness in uncovering government corruption in the United States and in governments and banking institutions around the world.

Kerry worked for 10 years with world leaders crafting the language for Kyoto and you act as if they never heard of Kerry before he ran in 2004 - an election where the world community was solidly behind Kerry and treated him heroically in their countries afterwards - but dumbass Americans who slobber over US TV find it easier to repeat the spin against the ONE lawmaker who effected this nation's actual historic record more positively than any other lawmaker of the last 35 years.

[Essene]

66. Do you think Bill Clinton would make a good SoS for Obama?

The job needs somebody seen as a strong surrogate to Obama. Period.

Going around and around about how Kerry is the only person "qualified" for the job and about how he's so awesome and smart... is to just miss the point entirely. You seem interested in validating Kerry and having this position "make up for" the "dumbass americans" who screwed him in 2004.

Sorry, but that's precisely the cronyism mentality.

That's precisely why so many foreign governments keep pushing around the same handful of party leaders into different positions.

Obama needs to send a clear message... and to have an SoS who 100% channels that message.

[ProSense]

68. John Kerry is not Bill Clinton. n/t

[Essene]

71. That's not an answer...

But i sense you realize the problem in answering it honestly.

[ProSense]

73. "But i sense you realize the problem in answering it honestly." Right

you're the genuine person here.

This is about Kerry and Richardson. Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this, and in fact: John Kerry is not Bill Clinton.

You are trying to draw a bogus parallel.

[Essene]

80. Answer the question honestly, then. Is Bill Clinton qualified to be SoS?

[ProSense]

96. It's a dumb question as he is a former President and isn't in the running for the job.

This is simply your way to deflect from the current discussion. Bill Clinton is a former President so he is obviously qualified for the job. Whether or not he would be suited for this position in an Obama adminstration is another subject.

[Essene]

106. Bill Clinton would make a HORRIBLE surrogate... even tho he is qualified

And you damn well know why the question is relevant.

[karynnj]

Bill Clinton would be a horrible surrogate because he is likely incapable of being a surrogate

He has proved that repeatedly - including when it was for his wife.

Kerry was an outstanding surrogate - did you miss the number of times he made the case for Obama - listing the Obama positions others had come to - in Iraq, on terrorsim, NK etc - NEVER stating they were his first (or even his). Kerry is ambitious - you don't run for President otherwise - but he is a dedicated citizen first.

[Essene]

118. you've made this point like 10 times and ive shown why it doesnt cut it... 10 times

The issue of Clinton being a bad surrogate is not just because he speaks out.

Hence my point about Kerry's "baggage."

Regardless of his intentions... he's ont going to be a good surrogate. He'll be seen as a party elder... a leader of a different party faction in the way foreigners think about politics. He's somebody who ran for President as well, the "standard bearer" at a different time... and he has a long, long history of speaking on foreign affairs.

He is thus OVER-qualified... just like Clinton.

He's fine in a domestic context and i think he'd remain a powerful voice from the Senate.

[karynnj]

125. No - my point was EGO - Kerry controls his, Clinton doesn't

You make no sense - you said before he couldn't because he lost - now you say his position as a standard bearer makes him too good - and that speaking on foreign policy for a LONG time is no good. As long as it is compatible with Obama - which it is - Kerry's prestige helps.

Obama could not do better than Kerry - if Kerry agrees with you he would be able to do more as Senator - he will state that.

Frankly there are many people who impress me more than Richardson.

[Essene]

134. As i said above, regarding how politics are understood in most foreign nations...

Look, i respect that you think he's the most amazing guy to ever grace politics and all that... and I wouldnt be all that bothered if Obama picked him for SoS... but...

Outside of the USA, folks have a different way of seeing Party politics because our government works differently. We elect a President fully aware that he's not literally the "boss" of the Party. Our parties are fairly decentralized, with states having their own machinery, with COngress having its own mindset... and the national parties often swinging back/forth in terms of their ability to unite on simple agendas.

Abroad... a party wins and the leader of the party sets up a government with top tier party members getting cabinet positions. In cases where the Party rules by a coalition with other parties, the cabinet positions are shared with top members of the other parties.

Agreed? yes or no? I feel it's important you appreciate this point, otherwise I'm wasting time trying to find shared understanding.

Abroad... it would not be surprising to see a former leader still dancing around in Party positions, because of how it works with competing factions always being bought off with power and prestige.

Appointing Kerry... the 2004 nomination... would be seen from those eyes, abroad. It would be like appointing either Clinton... the head of a competing faction that didn't win, but who simply gets the position based on their seniority and following. Regardless of this being unfair to Kerry's real merits, he would be seen in terms of his own Party loyalties and his previous comments on foreign policy.

Bill Clinton would have the same problem and it's not about him just being a bad surrogate in the sense that he makes it about himself. The mere fact that he's a former President makes him a bad surrogate. Kerry would NOT be seen as a clear surrogate abroad, precisely because of his having been the Party's contender in 2004 and having been so vocal on foreign policy over the decades. Hence, I'm saying he's basically over-qualified. He's too big and has baggage.

If you disagree... fine, but stop pretending that Kerry is the only one qualified for the position.

It's disrespectful.

[karynnj]

138. I am not pretenting that Kerry is the only one qualified - I really think Susan Rice would be

very very good. I also did NOT say that Richardson was not qualified. I just said that YOUR put downs were wrong - and anyone who reads this thread will see you are ALL over the map.

The fact of the matter, is that Clinton should have been an awesome surrogate for Hillary - and there were times he was. The reason he wasn't overall was he was not able to stay on message or remember it was not about him - Kerry as a surrogate for nearly a year did not do this.

Kerry has VERY little baggage - less than Richardson even. (He never worked for Kissinger)

[ProSense]

114. The question is irrelevant to the current discussion. n/t

[blm]

72. I already said Clinton is a Bushman - always was and always will be. There is no comparison between

the INTEGRITY of the two men, even though both are highly intelligent. Clinton used his intellect to PROTECT BushInc while Kerry used his to uncover international crimes of office that effected this nation's national security AND its economic security.

Kerry has BEEN Obama's top spokesperson on foreign policy issues all year and that fact seems to have escaped your notice as you pontificate that the SoS needs to be able to express Obama's policy positions in the world. ZGee - and imagine this - Kerry only speaks four languages while his wife is fluent in 5.

[Essene]

78. So, you think Bill Clinton is unqualified to be SoS?

And your explanation is that he fails ideologically and is a neocon?

You can go on and on and on and on about how awesome Kerry is but nobody is denying that.

[blm]

84. Already said what I know about Clinton - he isn't qualified to speak for ANY progressive WH

especially on issues where he sided for many years with protecting Bush1 and Bush2.

He may be hot stuff to the TV fed crowd, though. Not to any of us who read and happen to UNDERSTAND what's in the BCCI report.

[ProSense]

34. You go with the guy

who was the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2004, who formulated a foreign policy vision for the country, who has spoken with world leaders for more than 24 years as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who negotiated war crimes tribunal in Cambodia, who negotiated the Kyoto protocol, who has monitored elections from the Phillipines to the Palestian territory, who crafted legislation to deal with global threats, who defined the "New War" against terror, who wrote the Kerry Amendment, who has been a leader on the environment, who is revered and respected by world leaders, who was a Lt. Governor of MA and wrote the Acid Rain law, who prosecuted BCCI, who uncovered Iran-Contra and who defined the policy on withdrawing US troops from Iraq.

Kerry is far better qualified for the position.



On edit, and that said, this is Obama's choice.

edited typos.

[Essene]

48. Ambassador to the UN. Cabinet Member. Governor of a State. Nobel Peace Prize nom. A latino

[ProSense]

52. Rush Limbaugh was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

That's not a qualification for Sec. of State.

[LittleClarkie]

24. The thing is, I don't think that's enough. Obama isn't Bush

and won't be handing out these jobs to loyalists and people who deserve it because they delivered the election.

Which man is honestly right for the job based on qualifications?

[Motown_Johnny]

15. He is my pick also, but there are other good choices. We now have an embarrassment of riches

so many good people for top positions.

I have great hopes for this administration, not just because of our new President but because of all our party's leaders.

[Phoonzang]

19. Because he shaved off his beard. nt

[LittleClarkie]

22. I'd like someone to give me examples of how his experience qualifies him.

He looks good on paper, and I considered supporting him. But he rather sucked in person at the debates.

I like Kerry for the job, but I'd like to hear what others like about Richardson specifically. Would you oblige?

[Perky]

30. He is utterly qualified and the debate experience proves it.

He has the temperment to first see different sides of issues and then negotiate. That makes him a crappy...weasely debater.

He is well respeccted in dimplomatic cirles. Has good will with our adversaries. Has done a stint as UN Ambassador. Has served in Concress and has executive experience as a Cabinet Scretary and governor. The Career Foregn Service crowd love him.

[karynnj]

32. There is no reason that he and many others Shouldn't be SoS, except that there is just one

Kerry far outshines him on many dimensions - including having much longer - and more current foreign policy experience. In addition, Kerry has articulated his foreign policy world view - since 1996. Although it has matured it has been consistent and its basic tenet that we can't look just through an American lens, but must understand and reflect the cultures and needs of other people is very consistent with the message that Obama has.

In 2007 and 2008, when Richardson ran, he was the biggest disappointment to me, because given his resume, I expected him to be better in interviews and the debates. I found his opportunism on Iraq to be distasteful.

Also, he was the person who was best placed in the Clinton administration (other than maybe Albright) to address 2 questions that ended up hurting us - the fact that having bases in Saudia Arabia was a key reason that we were targeted by Al Queada (that helped them recruit though we may have become targets anyway) and there was no push to insure that sanctions did not hurt innocent people - the fact is preventing Iraq from getting parts to maintain their water treatment facilities killed people - mostly babies and children.

I also hold his responsible for the incompetent NM election in 2004 - and his unwillingness to have a recount. The accounts I've read is that the problems occurred because of internal Democratic party issues. That is unAmerican - even if NM being awarded to Kerry would not have been enough to change the election.

SoS is not an affirmative action appointment - so the fact that Richardson was

[marimour]

69. how was/would Richardson be an affirmative action appointment?

I thought the job of the secretary of state was to negotiate with foreign countries and instruct our US Embassies. Seeing as he actually has experience doing that ("Richardson has been recognized for negotiating the release of hostages, American servicemen, and political prisoners in North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba") then why wouldnt he be a better pick? A secretary of State doesn't just need knowledge of foreign affairs its also about the personality of the person. Kerry was completely lackluster personality wise during his run and, as far as I know, doesn't have the diplomatic experience.

[Essene]

75. I'm glad somebody had the guts to mention personality (lol)

Richardson has been Ambassador to the UN, a Cabinet member and a Governor of a State (i.e. actually ran a government and bureaucracies). He's charming, he's a latino and he's the type who could handle a surrogate position as "public relations" to the world.

Kerry doesn't have formal diplomatic experience, but he's done quite a lot behind the scenes for decades. I think he's over-qualified in the sense that he's been the party's nomination for President himself... and he's said books-worth of comments on foreign policy. He'd be a distraction. And i think he's just not the personality type... at all.

[blm]

94. Kerry GREW UP in a diplomatic household - his father wrote THE progressive bible on diplomacy.

And Kerry's personality has suited him quite well with sophisticated leaders across Europe and Asia and Africa. And his integrity is respected around the world and has been for decades.

Why do you insist on spreading RW memes against Kerry's personality that never showed up until he decided to run for president?

[Essene]

109. Bush grew up... son of the CIA chief, son of the VP... your point? lol

Kerry is qualified but the wrong guy for the position.

If he gets the position, I'll wish him the best but i see him undermining Obama by the mere fact of his background (i.e. not intentionally).

[blm]

116. Is your point that Kerry is not intellectually different than Bush? Why would Kerry undermine Obama

and his foreign policy positions when most of those policy positions adopted by Obama have been Kerry's positions? Sheesh...read Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan from 2007 - it reads almost exactly like the one Kerry drew up in June2006 - a position that Obama ADOPTED some months later as he grew more comfortable with it. kerry VERY generously presented Obama's positions as Obama's throughout the campaign, and would not assert his creds into the equation if he could avoid it. You really don't get that, do you? You've invested yourself in this argument that you constructed against Kerry knowing full well it is NOT based in reality. And THAT is why you are floundering here.

I don't want Kerry as SoS for HISTORIC REASONS - as in he's the one lawmaker who is CERTAIN to be a voice for open government and that matters to me more than any other single issue. BUT....he would certainly fulfill the ROLE of SoS brilliantly and with UNMATCHED knowledge and INTEGRITY.

BTW....he has also spent YEARS studying the world's religions and their effect on regional cultures and on their governments'. gee....wouldn't want to have a terrorism expert, a global financial crisis expert, global environmentalist, AND an expert on world religions in the position of SoS, now, would we?

[karynnj]

123. That is completely ridiculous

There is no instance where Kerry undermined him this year - and there is NOTHING in Kerry's past to suggest he ever would.

[ProSense]

89. " Kerry was completely lackluster personality" That's your opinion.

A lot of people really like Kerry:

Crowd hot for Kerry, disillusioned with Bush




He also did a great job campaigning across the country for Obama during the primary.

[marimour]

101. it is my opinion and was the opinion of a lot of people who voted for Bush in 2000.

I voted for Kerry of course but that was despite the fact that he showed basically 0 personality during the campaign. It definitely wasn't an exciting election for me. I was basically wondering how we managed to nominate such a dry candidate, but then again I was a dean supporter. I will admit that he has shown more life during the Obama campaign and was a great surrogate.

[karynnj]

124. I agree - all he needs to do is watch the third video here

The fantastic rally he had in a MA town, where Kennedy had always had rallies before each election. This is just an excerpt - it was incredible - but Kerry swung from emotional words about Kennedy - down in DC working on the healthcare plan and his hope to see Kennedy get the first signing pen from President Obama to joking about having asked a 12 year old kid, who had a fake black eye, discoloration and torn clothes "what the heck he was?" and being told he was the economy. The little kids there drifted from their parents to sit near the podium in front of everyone to see their Senator. What was clear was that he completely commanded everyone's attention and they loved him.

You might have noticed that Kerry's self written Convention 2008 speech, called the BEST non- acceptance speech in 2 decades was very very enthusiastically received.

As to your concern that he wouldn't be a good surrogate - the Obama team did NOT vet the speech - he was that trusted.

[politicasista]

132. Yep. Obama himself shows 10 times more respect for Kerry than people here do

Kudos to President Obama for considering a good patriot. :patriot:

[Essene]

136. nobody is showing kerry disrespect simply because we think others are qualified

If not a better fit for the position.

[politicasista]

141. There is a way to make the case for others without repeating media spin

about Democrats. That's what people are taking exception at in this thread.

The facts are that Kerry is qualified, respected among many foreign leaders, has experience, has been a strong surrogate, if not one of the go-to men on foreign policy for Obama, yet, you are repeating media talk that it is a negative for Obama because Kerry "lost" to Bush, ignoring the links about his experience and what foreign leaders and countries say and think about Kerry.

You also say things like he will undermine Obama or lacks personality. The job of SOS is not American Idol or Negotiating with the Stars. It's a serious job for serious times. All of what you have said is media spin.

You know, Kerry had charisma in 2000, but amazing, he had none in 2004. The crowds and people that encounter him on the ground prove that wrong. That is political media spin and we as Democrats should not be aiding in that spin.

I also remember when Kerry endorsed Obama. The same DUers who thought the endorsement was the kiss of death for Obama (because Kerry "lost") now have eggs on their faces. Obama values Kerry and vice versa. If people can not see that, then that's their problem.

You can support Richardson for this job, but repeating media lies/spin about Kerry to promote Richardson, does not help Richardson, and is an insult to Obama period. Kerry has been a strong supporter of Obama's candidacy when it wasn't the most popular thing to do.

[marimour]

148. its not media spin. It's how I felt after seeing him in person in 04

If you like Kerry for the job and think he has "charisma" then great. I don't know about 2000 but 2004 was my first introduction to John Kerry. I was still in college and barely watched CNN at the time so it definitely wasn't media spin. I went to a Kerry rally then and, compared to Dean, I was just not inspired by him as a candidate. That does not mean he isn't inspirational, it just means that I didn't see that in him. First impressions often leave a lasting impression and that was the impression that Kerry gave to a lot of people I knew (college students) at the time. I think he is more than qualified for the job but I also believe Richardson is too and also think he could prove valuable when dealing with Latin America because of his background. Either way I will be satisfied with Obama's choice. He knows what will work for him and I will support that.

[politicasista]

151. That may have been your opinon, however the DU Kerry group saw a different

view of him. Even some that met him personally. I don't know Kerry or haven't met him or Obama, and have never been to a rally, but maybe I am reading things differently.


I think people that have responded to you are just tired of the ignorance of Kerry's foreign policy credentials from people that claim to be liberals or Democrats. And some of that is media spin.

[karynnj]

145. If Kerry had a lackluster personality and Richardson didn't -

why did Kerry get so many people behind him - when he was not the party's or media's choice in late 2003/ealy 2004.

What I was responding to there was a poster who repeatedly listed as an important criterion that Richardson was Hispanic - that was what I responded to. The Secretary of State job is bigger than just negotiating and Kerry has more gravitas.

[politicasista]

147. Good question

If he was a terrible candidate/horrible campaigner, how did he win the primaries and do well all three debates against Bush? It's amazing you here people still say they held their noses and voted for him because he wasn't but, but you can't find a answer to a good question like yours.

Seems like no wants to answer that because it deserves some interesting answers.

[marimour]

149. honestly idk

They obviously saw something I didn't. I was a dean supporter and to a lesser extend Edwards. The great thing about us is that we were all free to support different candidates in the primaries but would rally around the winner. I was for Obama from the start but people saw Edwards something in Hillary and etc that I didn't see. That doesn't make them wrong for not seeing what I saw in Obama, it just means that they had a different preference. Even if they weren't as excited about him in the general, as long as they supported him at the ballot box then I could care less whether they agree with me about how great he is. Same way I felt about Kerry. I had no idea who he was before he won so while I obviously preferred him to Bush, I didn't make that connection, but of course I supported him.

[politicasista]

152. Unless you had C-SPAN

you wouldn't have saw the real Kerry. Seems like folks who attended the rallies or met him personally have a different view. So does Obama.

[karynnj]

153. I saw the candidate I was most enthusiastic about in my life

and I first voted in 1972.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. Yes. Because Kerry Would Be Better And Deserves It More.

[Essene]

67. ahh... another one of the "deserves it" arguments...

:)

That's a horrible reason to appoint somebody to SoS. He's undeniably qualified for the position, but he's arguably over-qualified... and would be a distraction for Obama. Richardson is very qualified and would be taken as a sincere surrogate abroad... one who's been an Ambassador, who's been a Cabinet member, who's been a governor of a state, etc.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. He'd Be Better Than Richardson, Has Earned It, And Should Get It.

Those are reasons enough.

And to take only one part of my previous post and say it's a horrible reason to appoint somebody, while then afterwards acknowledging the other part and agreeing he's undeniably qualified, is just plain dumb.

[marimour]

83. NO one has Earned it!

I think Kerry is well qualified but the fact that he was a great surrogate for Obama, the party's nominee doesn't mean that he would be the best when negotiating with Iran, etc. I want the person who would be a better diplomat to the world, and that's not necessarily the person with the longer resume. I think this election has proven that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. He Has MORE Than Earned It.

And limiting his having earned it to only things done during this campaign is amazingly short sighted.

And more important than his even having earned it, is the fact he's probably hands down the best one for the job.

[Essene]

91. ding ding ding - he'd be the better surrogate and foreign public relations guy

The argument the 3-4 diehard "only kerry" folks are making is basically that he's more ideologically pure and has a longer resume on behind the scenes foreign policy stuff.

Meanwhile... Richardson has been:

Ambassador to the UN

President Cabinet Member

Governor of a State

As a latino, charismatic guy who knows how to run bureaucracies and has been a formal diplomat... i think he's the better choice.

And frankly... I'd rather see Kerry be himself, a foremost leader in the Senate... then to try to be a surrogate to Obama.

[blm]

95. And yet, Obama chose Kerry to be his top spokesperson on foreign policy the past year and

had Kerry set up his trip to Mideast and Europe last summer before the convention.

So why again did Obama not please you during the campaign on his choice for top spokesperson re foreign policy?

[Essene]

107. Kerry is an ideal close adviser and a great domestic spokesperson

It is entirely different than being Obama's Secretary of State.

Even if Obama picked Richardson, I'd be willing to wager Kerry would be one of his closest advisers and REMAIN his primary domestic partner on foreign policy matters. Nobody is more qualified to get on MTP next year and to discuss the issues.

That's very different than going abroad, running a bureaucracy and doing the ground work for Obama in rebuilding foreign relations.

[blm]

111. Obama's TOP spokesperson on FOREIGN POLICY and who set up Obama's trip

to Mideast and Europe. Did you happen to NOTICE who did that role this past year?

[Essene]

120. things he'll do as Senator, as well...

[ProSense]

97. "I'd rather see Kerry be himself... then to try to be a surrogate to Obama."

This is nonsense. Kerry was Obama's leading surrogate during this campaign, from the primary on.

[politicasista]

140. They're afraid he'll commit a gaffe

Because you know since 2004, he is such a gaffe-prone speaking politician. Remember we lost 2006 and nearly lost Florida 2008 because of a botched joke, and Depends joke. :rofl: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

:rofl:


But I understand, people want him to stay on in the Senate. Given Uncle Ted's health and becoming SFRC chair and all.

[karynnj]

122. ALL of that translates to at most a year and a half as UN Ambassador

Did he even think to address the issue of the damage the sanctions were causing? That was a UN issue in exactly that time frame.

Being Governor - just meant he did NOTHING on foreign policy. He was Secretary of Energy. How does that give him foreign policy expertise. He was pushed constantly in the primaries - and he was rather pathetic on talk shows. I frankly did not see the brilliance.

I could care less if he is Latino - I would look pretty silly that Kerry should be picked because he was part Boston Brahmin (descended from the guy who wrote the line about the city on the hill, stolen by Reagan) or that he is ethnically part Jewish.

As to charisma I still don't get how the guy who got huge crowds in 2004 is less charismatic than the guy who generated little interest - in spite of more media support than Kerry had in 2003/2004 before Iowa. The Boston Herald recently had an article of a veteran event that Kerry and Cleland had in Worcester. In the article they spoke of how devoted the vets there were to Kerry - quoting one (a Vietnam vet) who in 2004, sold his house and spent a year speaking to people in Iowa, NH etc telling them about the John Kerry he knew. It was guys like that, many veterans or firefighters - in addition to Kerry himself - that led to the win in Iowa. The fact is that Kerry was the real under the radar grassroots candidate in 2004.

[Essene]

137. so... now you're disrespecting Richardson... bravo

[karynnj]

144. there is less disrespect here than in my things you said on Kerry

1) Is it true that being a governor he has no fp role, yes - per the constitution.
2) His only fp role (other than 14 years in Congress) is really exactly what I said a year and a half
3) EVERYBODY has a background - there is nothing special with being hispanic
4) I argued that Kerry is more charismatic - that is NICER than what you said of Kerry - I found Richardson very uncharismatic - I have no problem if others disagree - but Kerry undeniably did better getting people to follow him that Richardson did.

The first 2 are simply FACT. The third is my opinion - at that level you don't do affirmative action. On the 4th, I did not "disrespect" Richardson - I spoke of Kerry's charisma.

[blm]

81. Richardson was known abroad for his work WITH Clinton who turned out to be a Bushprotecting

administrator and who also defended Bush2's policy decisions on terrorism and Iraq war throughout Bush2's first term and well into his second term until his wife needed to run her primary race.

So....HOW do world leaders know of Richardson and his work with Clinton, again?

And how did they come to know Kerry over the last 3 decades?

[Kalyke]

74. Because there are better choices.

[Sensitivity]

82. kerry is a better choice to balance Barack as the American face to the globe

BTW my friend are on the Ricardson bandwagon for perks and positions in new State Dept.
Hispanics feel they are owed that position. Bill asked for it when he endorsed

[JVS]

86. I like him.

:thumbsup:

[malik flavors]

92. Probably becasuse Hillary would be better.

[marimour]

99. i'm not sure about that.

I'm not sure what would qualify her, but I would be open to it i guess. But I think the thing about SOS is that they have cto be absolutely committed to his vision and to being his subordinate. If Obama feels she would be that then I would be ok with it even thought I would prefer others over her.

[malik flavors]

103. I'm pretty confident she's qualified to do anything she wants.

And I think she's also a team player. Her tireless campaigning for Obama has proven that to me.

[marimour]

150. qualified to do anything she wants? ummm ok

She is qualified for a lot but not anything. She's very impressive but that doesn't mean that she can do any job and would do it better than people who have more experience in that position. I think she is a great senator and would do BEST on things she has experience working for, like health care.

[Mass]

104. Biden will be SoS in chief, which will makes the SoS less relevant.

So, who cares who will be SoS. This debate which is on DU is absolutely ridiculous. Could we trust Obama in choosing who he wants as SoS, or are people so rabidly for or against somebody that it still matters.

[ProSense]

130. I doubt Obama is going to appoint a token SoS.

People can debate preference and other nuances, but to claim Kerry is unqualified is ludicrous.

It will be interesting to see who Obama selects (for all the positions), and he has a number of qualified candidates to choose from.

[WinkyDink]

108. "Y"?

[janx]

113. Where's BigD ?

Where'd BigD go? :shrug:

[camera obscura]

127. If there are any other contenders who have met as many leaders and know the world's cultures as well

I haven't heard of them.

But he is a better contender than Kerry or Clinton. I love both of them but they don't have the experience.

[blm]

146. Read above posts. No one knows world cultures and worked with other world leaders

more than Kerry and I am shocked that many Dems are so unaware still of Kerry's crucial role in world matters over the last 3 decades.

[slampoet]

129. Not unless Madeline Albright wants to do it again.

[Truth2Tell]

139. Richardson would be adequate.

As Mass pointed out upthread, Biden will be driving the Obama FP team, so it doesn't matter all that much. Both Richardson and Kerry have the resume for the job. Kerry would likely be more independent. Richardson is a team player. Richardson is also more of a corporatist. I'd prefer Kerry, but between Obama and Biden making decisions, it wont matter much.