Secretary of State?

[El Supremo]

[leftofthedial]

1. Zell Miller!

[valerief]

4. Hey, he'd be a GREAT replacement for Joe Scarborough in the morning.

[madokie]

2. Richardson no doubt

[YOY]

3. Couldn't have done it without him.

And we have some repairing of relations to do in Latin America. (And everywhere else).

[karynnj]

20. Couldn't have done what - elect Obama?

His endorsement was after most people saw that there was no way Clinton could get more regular delegates.

The one it might have been impossible to do it without is Kerry - who gave Obama the speech and who endorsed in January when it really did make a difference. Kerry was a far bigger "get" than Richardson.

[YOY]

23. Oh I disagree.

The Latin vote was in there.

THey both helped let's not kid ourselves.

[karynnj]

26. That might have been true had he endorsed before Texas

I am NOT saying that the endorsement was worth nothing - the point was that Obama really already was going to get the majority of regular delegates. Do you seriously think that Obama would have had any chance of losing - assuming no major gaffe?

Kerry endorsed in January before SuperTuesday. Without the Kerry and Kennedy endorsements, it is unlikely Obama would have got beyond

In addition, Richardson refused the recount in NM, even though on some reservations there were ZERO votes for Kerry, even though he was the preferred candidate.

[aikoaiko]

5. Richardson is the smartest, most experienced of the bunch.

eta: except Jimmy, but he's a little long in the tooth and carries too much baggage.

[karynnj]

8. That didn't show in the primary intervies and debates - he can't hold a candle to Kerry

or Clark.

[aikoaiko]

16. Cark isn't enough of a politician & Kerry doesn 't have enough international experience

By my way of thinking.

[karynnj]

17. Kerry has 24 years on the SFRC

He is internationally respected. In 2004, he came within a small number of votes of being President. He was proven right on everything said in the foreign policy debate. He was and is FAR more impressive than Richardson, who was awful as he ran for President in 2007.

[steveironcity]

19. Bill

And he has a kickass beard

[AllyCat]

6. I like Clark for this position.

[El Supremo]

7. I think Clark is better suited for Sec. of Defense.

[KewlKat]

10. It's been posted many, many times that Clark CAN NOT be

Sec of Defense because he's not been out of the military for 10 years. Congress could pass a law to allow it, as was done for George Marshall, but I doubt anyone would be interested in initiating that.

By statute the secretary must be a civilian who has not served in the active component of the armed forces for at least 10 years (10 U.S.C. § 113 - Note that Congress passed a law to allow George Marshall to be appointed in 1950 despite having only been a civilian since 1945).

[El Supremo]

13. How many times?

Sorry some of us do not read every thread. But thanks for the info.

[AllyCat]

29. Yeah, ES, I've had that happen to me too. A legitimate question

is branded a "stupid question" since it's been posted here a gazillion times (I never saw it, never heard of it, like you, don't read every single thread). I even had a topic locked by a Mod because it was a "stupid question" and I should have searched for it.

I can't remember how long he has to be out of the military before he can serve as SoD, but we aren't there yet!

[AllyCat]

11. He can't. He was in the military too recently.

[Greyhound]

25. He'd be my choice, he has the experience in dealing with most, if not all,

of the major players and he's proven that he can do it successfully. He has the intelligence, spine, and experience to be one of the best we've ever had.

[shadowknows69]

9. RIchardson

Best choice IMO.

[TahitiNut]

12. What's Josh Bolton doing?

:hide:

[bobd0]

14. Richardson n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Susan Rice (not sure that's the "Rice" in your poll)

She has never failed to completely and totally impress me.

[karynnj]

21. I think she would be excellent - better than Richardson

[applegrove]

22. I voted for her.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. Hillary.

Next to Carter, Richardson is the absolute best negotiator this country has ever had. He needs to be free to go anywhere at any time. Free from an "official" office, free from any "perceived" constraints. If he does any work for the Obama Administration, he needs to have a new position created specifically for him and his unique skills to allow him to do what he does best.

Kerry cannot leave Mass with Teddy so sick.

Hillary.

[Swamp Rat]

24. Richardson

I like Clark too.

[wisteria]

27. If a mold was necessary to define a Secretary of State- Senator Kerry would fill that mold.

His foreign policy credentials are extremely impressive, being a veteran and war hero gives him a unique perspective on security issues, he has vast knowledge of global issues and he shares a similar views regarding reaching out to our friends overseas and dealing with our enemies. and, as far as diplomacy- Senator Kerry came very close to being the top diplomat in this country in 2004 when he nearly won the presidency.
Richardson has a diplomatic background, but just isn't on par with Kerry and his credentials.

Personally, I am pulling for Senator Kerry.

[wisteria]

28. A nice write up on what Senator Kerry would bring to this position.

Now, this is all just speculation, but it says a lot about the resume Senator Kerry would bring to this position.

"Kerry would bring strong credentials to an Obama administration. His Vietnam experience instilled in him a sense of the tragic and a gravity about committing U.S. forces to peripheral conflicts. He has a well-established place in the Senate as a foreign-policy expert, stemming from his seat on the Foreign Relations Committee. His first book, “The New War,” published in 1998, was a prescient look at threats to national security from non-state actors like terrorists and narco-traffickers.



"Furthermore, longtime observers say, Kerry’s political instincts could be an asset. Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a grant-making foundation for non-proliferation studies, said Kerry’s experience in the Senate — and as a presidential nominee — taught him the importance of building domestic support for an administration’s foreign policy. “He combines foreign-policy expertise with political instincts,” Cirincione said. “He understands it’s not enough to have the right policy, but to deliver the policy and build support for that policy.”


“John Kerry has consistently pursued liberal internationalist positions in the Senate, which are in accord with expectations about an Obama administration foreign policy,” said Robert Farley, a national-security professor at the University of Kentucky’s Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, in an email. “Notably, Sen. Kerry spearheaded initiatives to engage with two nations viewed as hostile to the United States. In 1985, Kerry visited Nicaragua and met with President Ortega, then under heavy pressure from the United States and its Contra proxies. In the early 1990s, Kerry (along with Sen. John McCain) worked to lay the ground for normalization of relations with Vietnam, including hearings that put to rest the idea that Vietnam continued to hold U.S. POWs. To the extent that a President Obama would seek engagement with Iran, North Korea or other nations hostile to the United States, Kerry would seem an ideal choice for secretary of state.”

During the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Kerry gave one of the most forceful speeches, directly attacking McCain on his perceived foreign-policy strengths. “When John McCain stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier just three months after 9/11 and proclaimed, ‘Next up, Baghdad!’” Kerry said, “Barack Obama saw, even then, an occupation of ‘undetermined length, undetermined cost, undetermined consequences’ that would ‘only fan the flames of the Middle East.’ Well, guess what? Mission accomplished.”

http://washingtonindependent.com/16708/kerry-at-foggy-bottom