Why are people so scared of...?

[politicasista]

Kerry's name being mentioned as consideration for cabinet posts?

I mean it's not just DU, but outside the blogosphere? I know there are significant reasons why he should stay in the Senate and become SFRC Chair, but it must really frighten people that Obama is thinking highly of Kerry. Because people are coming up with a million different reasons why he shouldn't be considered for SOS, or any position, whether it be 2004, questions about charisma or temperament, or foreign policy in general. It's just weird, but not surprising.

Can't wait for the silly season to end. January 20, 2009 can't come fast enough.

[MBS]

1. I sure hope Obama doesn't choose Daschle, that's for sure

Newspaper reports that an "Obama staffer" said that Daschle doesn't want HHS secretary, but does want to be SoS.Huh? Daschle?. I'd be REALLY disappointed if that happened. I thought he was a weak minority leader in the Senate, and also in pretty thick with the lobbyists and Beltway crowd. It was surprising to me even that he was a "close advisor" to the Obama campaign.

And what IS it about all these leaks about cabinet prospects suddenly, all coming from "Obama staffers"? So different than the campaign. It must be a deliberate strategy, to float names around and gauge reactions. . ??????

I also am confused and fed up about all the trash thrown at Sen. Kerry.

JK would be a fantastic SoS, and, to state the obvious, is clearly the most qualified of the supposed candidates. But I'd also like to see him stay in the Senate as head of SFRC . Wherever he can have the most voice and influence. Wherever he feels happiest.

[TayTay]

2. This is to be expected

This is about divvying up the power that was acquired in this election. The posts that Sen. Kerry is being mentioned for are very, very powerful positions. There are a lot of aspirants to these offices. The time honored way of promoting one candidate over another is to start these whisper campaigns and bring up old grievances. Patience, people, patience. This too shall pass.

The whisperings and disparagements don't actually matter much. President-Elect Obama does not hear them. Sen. Kerry is past them, in most ways. Nothing that can be said online or in the rumor mill will have more than a tiny effect. The polls and online nastiness are not really relevant to what happens going forward. I know this stuff is painful to read, but take the long view. It is happening because the good Senator is a formidable presence and others want to knock him down. It won't work.

None of the online chatter matters. Sen. Kerry will become either a very, very powerful US Senator or perhaps a Cabinet officer in a history-making US Presidency. None of the polls or revisiting of supposed past errors is going to change that. No one knows how things are going to shake out right now. Sen. Obama's choices are yet to be revealed. However, the future is exceedingly rosy for John Kerry right now, no matter what happens.

Take a minute and sit back and savor this moment. This is what we worked for and wanted for so long. It will not come without grumbling and jealousy and nastiness. That is the way of power, after all.

[MBS]

3. Good reminder that both Obama and Kerry are too smart to listen

to the carping. From what I now know of local MA politics and the Beltway Scene, what impresses me about JK perhaps most of all is that he manages to retain his integrity and sanity, and actually even prevails, despite all the local and national posturing and related b__ s__. No matter what, he continues to press on for our country.
JK is the guy who shows me daily how to get up every day and do what needs to be done, staying fast to your principles. By his actions, he shows all of us what real victory is all about.

[Luftmensch067]

4. Thanks for the perspective, as always, Tay!

What you're saying makes a lot of sense and I realize, reading it, that I've just never been paying this much attention at a moment like this before, so I haven't seen what must be a normal occurrence when power changes hands. Your wise words help me, personally, to calm down and know that neither Obama nor JK is really being hurt by this nastiness and the outcome is all good. :-)

[ProSense]

5. Perfect! In a couple of words:

these people have ulterior motives.

We won! Damn this feels good.

:)

[MBS]

6. great summary --yup, ulterior motives indeed.

I'm still in disbelief that we actually won.

[YvonneCa]

7. Isn't that the greatest thing? Your words...

..."Sen. Kerry will become either a very, very powerful US Senator or perhaps a Cabinet officer in a history-making US Presidency. None of the polls or revisiting of supposed past errors is going to change that. No one knows how things are going to shake out right now. Sen. Obama's choices are yet to be revealed. However, the future is exceedingly rosy for John Kerry right now, no matter what happens.


Savoring...:7

[beachmom]

8. You know, I did a little experiment. I plugged in "Bill Richardson"

in Google Blogs, and you know what? There was speculation of him being SoS and it was ALL POSITIVE. Not so with John Kerry. He really is hated by a lot of different factions from both parties. I also have yet to meet a Democrat apart from this group that likes John Kerry, sorry to say. Any time I go to a gathering of Democrats whether it be Virginia or Georgia, it's the same bashing we see on the blogs. With one exception: I did meet a lady living here who is from Worcester, and she loves him. Other than that it is complete dismissal. It just gets me down. I am sure that is what Politcasista runs into in TN as well. The one good thing is that I ALWAYS speak up in defense of John Kerry, in a soft way, and the person I am talking to ends up agreeing with me.

The ugly talk is just crap, and you know I am getting sick of it. Maybe it is time to take a break. I don't know. But this should be a happy time for Dems; instead it is an opportunity to take another shot at a true patriot, John Kerry, who did more to get Barack Obama elected POTUS than anyone else.

[politicasista]

9. Yep. You nail it.

Even though I haven't heard much Kerry bashing in TN (just at a non-political site I hang out), but I am sure if what you heard in VA and GA, I am sure it's the same here in TN (Obama only carried 5 counties, :(). And you are right, Kerry did more than any Dem (besides Dean) to get Obama elected, yet, he is treated like donkey poo.

You're right. We should be happy. We should be celebrating an Obama presidency, picking up House and Senate seats, but instead we are still fighting the primary wars from 03-04, 08, and 2004 as a whole. And the racist talk involving Prop 8 is discouraging also.

We should be celebrating Obama's victory, but we are acting like petty little children. The cabinet positions are turning into popularity contests, rather than putting people in charge that are best for the Obama Administration, and the Democratic Party as a whole. We haven't learned one blessed thing from Obama's campaign or Obama himself. (At least for now).

Yes, a break is needed now. :(

[beachmom]

10. The Prop 8 discussions have been disgusting. I also was disappointed

that it passed, and equally disappointed that the black community was disproportionately opposed to gay marriage (although their vote did not effect the final outcome). But then many gay activists behaved in such a reprehensible way, that I just thought: damn, people, you need to get a grip.

There is a long history of resentment between gays and blacks -- I know in Atlanta many gay couples moved into neighborhoods that had been in decline, and fixed up the houses, making property prices go up. My initial viewpoint was that this was a great thing; but apparently, it made property taxes go up, and many AA's living in these neighborhoods were forced to leave homes they had always lived in, because they couldn't afford the higher taxes. On the other side of that many of them were homophobic, and sometimes gays were subjected to hate crimes from their black neighbors. So essentially, the whole thing is a mess. I saw racism from some gay bloggers during the primaries -- during the McClurkin (sp?) controversy. One diary was so racist against Obama that the poster deleted it and wrote an apology where he was greeted with a lot of "F*** you's" in response. He left DailyKos and became a rabid Hillary supporter. In fact, I think a good lion's share of the "PUMAs" were gays mad about that (and Obama did not do as well with the gay vote as Kerry did, seven percent lower, a stunning and sad statistic). So this situation has been brewing for a long time.

Edit: I found him, definitely a PUMA, last post 8/1/08, vowing that Obama was going to lose the election.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/8/1/231257/4461/2#c2

[politicasista]

12. Yes, I was disappointed in that too

And I remember the Obama-McClurklin episode. (That was ugly).

Thanks for sharing the happenings in GA and that nasty PUMA guy's diary.

What's happening in Atlanta isn't surprising. My cousin lives down there and talks about how she can't find a straight AA man. They are either on the DL (Down Low) or on lock down.

Yes, this has been brewing for a long time, especially in the AA church. Preachers are afraid to touch the subject and have been criticized for not raising AIDS awareness in the church and in the AA community. There is a lot of homophobia in the AA church, so it is very disappointing that Prop 8 passed.

I bet it's the same people that supported Prop 8 voted for Bush in 04, but (maybe) voted for Obama in 08. Some (not all) AA are known to be socially conservative on moral issues, but liberal on domestic issues (i.e. economy, health care, etc).

And yes, that is sad Obama didn't do well with the GLBT vote as Kerry did. It shows the country still as a long way to go in improving equal rights and equality for all Americans. (Another proof why we need Obama :)).











edit for word

[JI7]

13. remember Kerry got into trouble when he compared gay rights to civil rights

and he did it inside black churches in the South. i didn't realize how much of a problem this was until i read afterwards that they had to get Sharpton and other black leaders to convince the churches that Kerry was on their side.

i do believe Obama will deal with this and make things better.

[politicasista]

14. Wow, I didn't know about that part either

It must have been during the 04 primaries and/or GE. I wonder how they feel about Kerry now. (Not that it's important, but curious). 2004 was just ugly. It almost sounds like everyone was conceding that Kerry would "lose" and wait for 08, considering the lack of support and bashing from Democrats, Republicans and everywhere else.

I do think that Obama will make things better too.

[JI7]

15. Black voters actually did support Kerry very strongly but

there was an issue of those who push for anti gay laws trying to get black church leaders on their side . Bill Clinton also contacted many black church leaders to deal with this.

most of the people actually applauded Kerry when he talked about rights for people. he did do it with bringing up biblical quotes so that may have helped.

but there were some upset and i remember a young lady who got into a small debate with him over it.

this was an overall problem that Kerry had back then. the same thing happened in Catholic Churches with people telling members not to support Kerry because of abortion. many even told them that Kerry had been excommunicated. because Kerry was Catholic the Catholic church seemed to be more critical of him.

[politicasista]

22. Interesting read

I am still mad that Bush or Rove was able to use the issue of Religion to sway voters. I haven't been back to church in 5 years.

[ginnyinWI]

11. some people just have to carp about something.

Being in the minority for so long, we get entrenched habits so we look for things to quibble over.

Me, I'm all smiles. I'm busy collecting newspapers to put into a box for my great-great-grandchildren to read. :) I've got a few Chicago Tribunes, which is doing a huge amount of Obama coverage, as well as the Milwaukee paper and USA Today and Newsweek. Happy to be living through something truly historic.

And I'm reading all the happy words being written. My favorite one so far is Garrison Keillor's column in Salon: http://www.salon.com/opinion/keillor/2008/11/05/happy_couple/.

It truly brought tears of joy to my eyes.

[karynnj]

19. That's true, but Tay is right

What I saw this week in MA is that he is liked very much and if he opts to continue to make his mark as a Senator, people there know who he is and what he's done. (I'm still shocked the Boston Herald wrote of the veterans who were devoted to him, giving an example of one who sold his house and went to Iowa to help Kerry.) I agree with Tay - SoS is not something voted on - It's Obama's choice.

As to Daschle, I think he has been as badly treated as Kerry. I don't see that Reid was stronger - look at his actions on Alito. That was exactly the case they were "saving their powder for". What Daschle was credited with when he was majority leader was that he had good diplomatic skills. The President will be the one who sets the policy. Daschle might be good as Secretary of State - giving Obama - Daschle, Biden and Kerry (as chair of SRFC), in addition to people like Susan Rice (who also would be a good SoS) as a strong "kitchen cabinet" on foreign policy.

As to the negative comments consider that already this week, after running a dishonorable campaign, there are articles of the power McCain will be as one of the Republicans Obama can reach out to. The Clintons have had many puff pieces about how helpful they were to Obama. I agree that the longer primary helped, but the smears didn't and the whining at the end about sexism and arguing it was a tie (which was as silly as when Lieberman argued that he was in a three way tie for third, ignoring the other 2 had 12% and he had 9%) didn't. In both the media and blogs, there were suggestions of a consolation prize, majority leader, cabinet post, Supreme Court Justice (!!) In late 2004, there were no articles praising Kerry graceful re-entry to the Senate on the first day it started and there was the (likely Clinton inspired) whisper campaign that Kerry thought of himself as more than just one of 100 Senators - ignoring that he earned a place as a leader. Instead, Kerry has gotten a huge amount of negative press since 2004 - and he was smeared on EVERYTHING in 2004, not just his service. His Senate career was evaluated with a criteria never used before or since - denying him credit for anything where he was not the first named sponsor. His character, his personality and his relationship with his wife were all distorted. Very few articles credit Kerry for his leadership on either global warming (where he did more at Bali than the high profile Gore) or on Iraq.

Most people are very prone to repeat what they see as CW - especially in casual conversation. I've had the same experience as you when Kerry's name is mentions - and there is the same backtracking and often an admission that they had liked him too. I think this is because there is enough residual memory of Kerry 2004 that people easily change their opinion, Richardson has the opposite phenomenon. In 2007, his "golden" resume was pushed and he sounded like a good possible black horse for those of us who didn't want HRC and who thought Obama might be too inexperienced. Then he was AWFUL in every interview I saw - some painfully so. He was also very weak in the debates. I was also disturbed by his actions on a 2004 recount. But, no one but the top three got that much media - and the image retained was that he had "lots of experience". As, at best number 4, there was NO real scrutiny or attacks on him. This means his name is now vaguely and positively known.

As Kerry is seen as a front runner for this, he is likely being attacked by everyone wanting some one else. The real problem may be that Kerry is the only one who has often expounded his own foreign policy view - and it IS a major change from the past.Given the credit he is given as a diplomat, it was odd that Richardson did not in the primaries articulate a philosophical foreign policy view- as Kerry did in the 2004 primaries. He was a team player on the Clinton team - which was what his job was. Unlike any top person in either party, Kerry has stood against everyone to do what he sees is right. The combination of that past willingness to do things that aren't popular and his words of change might be part of what scares the powers that be - even though "change" was the theme of this year. The power elite is always very wary of major change on anything. But, Obama will be the one making the BIG foreign policy issues. Given this, I prefer Kerry as head of SFRC - if Obama and Kerry really are in sync on foreign policy, Kerry will be in his "kitchen cabinet" and a powerful private voice. If not, Kerry will be a strong independent voice pushing the President in that direction.

[JI7]

16. actually on DU most people aren't "scared" or totally against it

most who say they don't want him to be sec of state say so because they think he is a very good Senator and especially with Ted Kennedy being ill it's more important he stays.

but almost everyone thinks he will do well at both jobs.

[wildflowergardener]

17. both?

Yesterday - I don't remember whether I heard it on NPR or Air America or read it somewhere, but someone said something like it may be possible to be both on the cabinet, and a Senator at the same time - constitutionally I think - whether you could do both jobs at one time would be the question.

I wish I could recall where I'd heard it.

Editing: I just read another post on this board that said it was mentioned on Keith Olbermann - so a question - if legal could a person be both Secretary of State and a Senator at the same time - could you effectively do both jobs at once?

Meg

[TayTay]

20. That would be too difficult to pull off

And it raises underlying questions about the separation of powers. There is a wonderful article in the http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/magazine/09power-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin">NYTimes Magazine this Sunday about what went wrong with the Senate and why it rolled over for Bush all these years. Part of the reason is that Senators were putting Party over their commitment to the Senate. (JK is right, the comity of the place has devolved and it doesn't work.)

The job of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to provide Congressional oversight on the State Department and American foreign policy. It is an inherent conflict of interest to have any Cabinet member belong to the Agency/Committee that is supposed to be doing that oversight. This is part of the reason I supported the Dems and JK in particular; that argument to restore oversight. The Bush Administration treated Congress like a wayward puppy, not a co-equal branch of government. For the sake of our democracy, this has to change. Congress MUST do strong and consistent oversight, no matter who the President is or who is in his Cabinet. It is imperative to the future that we reign in the Executive, do away with signing statements and such and make absolutely certain that we live under a Rule of Law where no office-holder is exempt from obeying the Constitution and the Law.

[YvonneCa]

21. Craig Crawford...

...I heard it, too. Seems a bad idea to me.

[cadmium]

18. I think that this may have as much to do

with rumor-spreaders who want him out of the Senate as much as dont want to see him in a cabinet post.

[ProSense]

23. Interesting

Kerry Is the No Drama Option for Secretary of State

[politicasista]

24. Yep. Interesting comments

You have some who prefer Kerry for his FP skills, others may prefer Richardson because of his experience as a negotiator and freeing hostages, others may prefer a non-political person.

Obama's got so many options, which is all good. :)

[MBS]

25. this is an excellent piece, by Al Giordano of The Field

and there's (ahem) a poll there. . . Kerry is leading, by FAR, but in case you're so inclined, you can still vote. Just saying. . : )

Thanks, ProSense.