OT: administration vs. senate

[Inuca]

what do you guys think? Interested, because I am not sure where I stand myself on this one. People like Kerry, Biden, Dodd,... Senate seniority vs. cabinet post? Of course it would depend on whose administration, but let's assume an Obama one. The only think that I know for sure is that, in spite of the exhilaration at Obama's win (yes, I am very sorry Biden is out, but Obama's speech last night brought tears of hope (what else :-)?) to my eyes), he will need all the help he can get, and he'd better look for it in the right places, else he, and everybody else with him, may be in a sea of trouble.

If anyone is in the mood to speculate on this, I am very interested on your thoughts.

[Mass]

1. Honestly, I think it is probably more about the inclination of the people and what a future

president wants than anything else.

This said, I think it will probably be a lot more exciting to be in an Obama or Edwards cabinet than a Clinton cabinet, given that you would have to live with a co-presidency between Bill and Hillary who probably would make irrelevant a number of cabinet positions. Who wants to be SOS or UN ambassabor with Bill clearly being there to play the role, for example.

Obviously, for whoever agrees with Obama in his views of foreign policy, it could be an exciting experience to hold these positions. However, this also means that you have to be ready to be subordinate to the president and forget your own position.

So, I do not know how seasoned people would react. Hard for me to see that. I just would hope that, if they stay in the Senate, they are given real recognition of what they bring in the public eye (and I do not see that happening, cynical as I am).

[ralbertson]

2. Not necessarily. depends on the president in question.

"However, this also means that you have to be ready to be subordinate to the president and forget your own position."

Ultimately, of course, it's true that the one who has the final say-so on stuff is the person at the top of the pyramid. And that is as it should be. But if the president in question would expect you to forget your own positions and just echo his own every time instead, then you're probably working for the wrong darn president anyway.

[karynnj]

3. I agree with everything you say

I also think it would have to do with both how close their views are with the President's and the relationship offered. While it is naive to think that the ultimate decision would be made by anyone but the President, there are examples of Secretaries of state who really did craft the policy of the administration. Kissinger did for both Nixon and Ford, though both already had more foreign policy experience than Edwards or Obama. I think Brezinski had real input into Carter's. Although I could be wrong, I think Rice, Powell and Albright really didn't.

I had thought that being a Senator with a lot of senority would let them achieve things they feel are important in what is likely to be a more Democratic Senate. Being in the cabinet, is a loss of independence, to some degree. In thinking of it though, it would depend on what is really offered. At that point, the President has the luxury of nominating almost anyone who is willing to take it. So, it is an honor and would not be offered unless the President genuinely respected the person in that area. (ie no matter how much McCain likes Kerry, he will not ask him to be Secretary of Defense, nor would Kerry take it - as he would have to implement plans McCain agreed with.)

Let's say that knowing their views on foreign policy, Obama met with Biden, Dodd or Kerry and asked if they would agree to be Secretary of State and said their first task would be to set up the Regional type diplomacy that Kerry and others have recommended. What if Obama said that given the international respect the Kerry has, he would be the US official presiding over it? (You could make the case that given what he did as MIA/POW chair and on Cambodia (not to mention resolving sports/tv issues :) ), there are few people as good at bringing people together to find a common solution that at least meets everyone's needs, if not their wants. What if he also mentions that this person could be the US point person on the international global warming issues.

This would be tough to turn down. It would be an offer that let's him be a force for repairing the mess in the world. If it went well, the credit would go mostly to the President, but recognition, while obviously appreciated, has never seemed to be his motivation. The offer could be very attractive. (The attractiveness of what is offered would likely be dicated by the degree of respect for the abilities of the person.)

[Inuca]

4. I definitely agree about Clinton

if she ends up being the one, I will be really curious at how she will fill the cabinet positions. IMHO there would not be many takers for most of the important posts, given how huge Bill's shadow would be. My guess is that she would use old Clinton hands, like Holbrooke, etc.

My curiosity is really about possbile appointments to an Obama cabinet, not only because of what happened last night, but also because I get the feeling that in spite of his obvious cockiness, he is a listener, also obviously a learner (hopefully a very fast one).

[JI7]

5. at this time i prefer Kerry in the Senate because he speaks on so many issues

that i want him to attend events and things around the country and world to talk about those things. no question he would do good in a number of positions such as Attorney General , secretary of state and other things but he would have to focus mostly on that.

i think Joe Biden would be a great choice for sec of state.

[beachmom]

6. Yeah, I lean that way, too. In the Senate, although you are dealing

with 99 votes and a leadership, a senator still sets his/her own agenda. In a cabinet position, the president sets the high level agenda. However, in the cabinet you are exerting executive power, which legislators don't have. BUT, the longest a cabinet position is is 8 years. Kerry could be in the Senate as long as he wants, so ... that makes me favor him staying in the Senate, where he has senority that will only increase.

[Mass]

7. OK. This is not going to be appreciated here, but I think Kerry's time in the Senate is passed, at

least a time where he will have an important impact that will be remembered. If the last 3 years have been any sign, Senators have generally mocked him except when they needed him (sometimes the hypocrisy makes me throw up), made sure that his role was ignored. So, I do not see why it would change now that there is going to be a next nominee (whether he is elected president or not).

I know this is something that is not going to be liked here, but there is going to be some more media stars in the next elections (Mark Warner, by example), and some people vying for leadership in the Senate. So, short of Kerry pulling an initiative like Gore or Carter (in his own domain), I do not think that it will suddenly become influential in the Senate. Sorry, I know it hurts, but given that influence means media attention, I do not see that happening. Sure, he will pursue a few things he cares about, but will it matter whether he is within the Senate or outside? I really do not know.

And, after that, I am going to be hiding for a while.

:hide:

[ProSense]

8. I don't agree

Kerry doesn't need to become more influential in the Senate, he already is. The Dems' entire energy platform, SCHIP, HIV and other key legislation are based on his work. (On edit: Also, the current candidates have adopted elements of his 2004 platform). As for mocking, is that like the Schumer's stubbornness and then regret about the Alito filibuster?

In 2006, there were media stars in Webb, Tester and others. Where are they now? In fact, Kerry in still getting national coverage as a non-candidate for president --- look at the piece the other day in the LA times. Which other Senator gets national coverage like that? There is a good chance that either Clinton or Obama will no longer be in the Senate, and their leadership there pales in comparison to Kerry's. If Clinton returns, what will she be doing?

Kerry's chairmanships (small business, SFRC - Asia, Social Security) are key to a many of the policy issues that will be facing the country during the next admin. There will be no diminishing his already influential role. This year alone, he saved baseball and football for fans. :)

Don't hide! :)

[ginnyinWI]

9. two paths.

If JK stays in the Senate, I see him eventually filling Teddy's shoes as an elder statesman with his own key issues, the go-to guy when the need arises to make statements or solve big problems in the Senate.
Not bad--it's steady and productive.

If he should become Secretary of State, he'd be in his element. It's our "Department of Peace" to counter the Defense Dept which should still be called the "Department of War"! I think he'd jump at the chance to be a key player in the world of foreign diplomacy, and I think he'd be a smashing success! The world would know what it's like to have a real U.S. Sec-State again. Any president who nominated him would understand that JK would need to be given his head (in horseman's terms)--to have enough autonomy to do and say what he knows is best.
He'd be a huge asset to an Obama or Edwards presidency, and they'd be smart to ask him. I do think there is a fair amount of residual good will and respect toward him from our allied countries since the last election, another reason he'd do well. Ambassador to the U.N would also be good, even if lower in profile.