Kerry For State?

It is said that John Kerry wants to be Secretary of State. What do you think about that?

This is an Open Thread.

< Max Baucus | The Filibuster And The Supreme Court >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Change we can believe in! (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    Kerry, Summers, Powell, Emmanuel.

    I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

    I saw the lineup of Obama's first press (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by hairspray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    conference and with one or two exceptions they were all Clinton officials. I don't know if he is doing what Bill was told to do at first, show the markets they are in good hands.  Rubin and Summers said that Clinton had to calm the markets first of all.  Sounds like Obama is doing likewise.  No doubt HRC would have done exactly the same.  The one person I was happy to see was Laura Tyson up there.  She was fantastic.  It will be interesting to see the foreign policy team up there.  If he shuns Wes Clark he is making a big mistake!!  Sheeesh!

    HRC would have done the same, no doubt (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by starsandstripes on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    But she didn't chant about "change".

    Yes,, no doubt. But Labor (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:01:53 PM EST
    would have been on that stage as well.

    It didn't seem to reasssure Wall St and it sure as Hell doesn't reassure me to see that wall of white guys backing up Obama.

    Hope Rahm isn't the only 'diversity' we're going to see...jeez, this is depressing.


    Not so much (none / 0) (#146)
    by delandjim on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 10:58:33 AM EST
    The word is Kerry went to Hillary first and said if you promise SOS I'll endorse you and she wouldn't so  it makes you wonder.

    If true, it may have cost the nomination. He came out morning after her big New Hampshire surprise and endorsed Obama. If really seemed like it popped her New Hampshire win balloon and she didn't get the bounce that would normally come with that.


    Yeah, I wish it would be (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:07:28 PM EST
    Wes Clark for Sec. of Defense

    SecOfDef needs to be a (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ding7777 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    civilian for at least 10 years - Clark doesn't qualify until May 2010

    Oh, thanks, didn't know that (none / 0) (#72)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    Can be waived (none / 0) (#83)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:40:01 PM EST
    I wonder why, if (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by mg7505 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:11:54 PM EST
    we're just going to appoint former Clinton officials and entrenched Washington insiders to the top jobs, we couldn't have just had a Clinton in the highest job of them all. Amazing the MSM isn't calling Obama on this -- but when did they ever call him on anything? Granted, I'm fine with the old guard stepping in and pulling us out of this mess.

    It will be a good choice (none / 0) (#15)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:20:22 AM EST
    Sen. Kerry served in Vietnam, later in his life he worked with Sen. McCain in a bipartisan way to normalize relationship with Vietnam. He is a Senator with gravitas who is widely respected in Europe, Asia and the rest of the world. Boring is good (more often than not it implies competency)! I always feel amused at how quickly some Clinton supporters use Republican talking points. Remember, Gore was also "boring" in 2000. Look, where it got us. IMO, Kerry will be a much better choice than what we had in the last Democratic Presidency. Madeline Albright was always too quick to want to go to war. I can still remember the disaster of a townhall [meeting ] in Ohio where Madeline Albright was booed by the audience for trying to sell the decision of going for another war in Iraq.

    That's not the point. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:22:31 AM EST
    The point is that for all the BS of change and hope...Obama is giving us a good ol' Dem establishment administration--including 90% of Clinton's people. That's a good thing. It's the BS of the Unity Hopey Nonsense that still offends.  

     I am so confident Obama will do well. Because he's choosing good people.  Let's not pretend they're any kind of "new kind of politics in washington" Because they're not. They're Dems. And they govern better. That's why it's a good thing and that's why it will work out better.


    Who cares what the mantra is... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    if it works, as you suggest it will, then it works.

    Are you agreeing then (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    that it was bullcrap all along?   Because the distinction is important. It was WHY Obama was the best choice.  He was the only one that could change government (by appointing all former Clinton WH staffers). Remember that? Or are we to forget that now?

    How's that again? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    I imagine that Hillary 'was the only one who could change government by appointing former Clinton staffers.'  etc. etc.

    Seems to me that after 8 years in the WH and 8 years in the senate, Hillary and Bill know everyone...they know who to trust and who not to...who did their job and who didn't.  Obama knows none of this but he knows to whom he owes this election...who was in his campaign from day one and even before.  

    Kerry has to be paid off along with Daschle and a few others whose demands must now be met.  They will be making the recommendations for appointment to thousands of government positions.

    Obama's no fool.  His charge will be to decide whom to listen to on which appointment.  Since it's 'still the economy, stupid' one has to assume he's going to listen to the Clinton team from the 90s.

    With few exceptions, the Clinton people were 'good government in spades.'  If he wants competence in his administration and in the transition, he has to go there.  Tried and true better be the watchword.

    Kerry for SoS?  Jeez...what a drag.


    Complaining? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    I thought you liked Clinton. Besides no matter how you slice it, this is a huge change.

    You may have never know... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    to forget this, but I wanted HRC to win the primary.

    Wow I just blew that sentence... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:53:26 AM EST
    but the point was I wasnt for Obama during the primaries, so the whole change thing was moot for me.

    I did not know that. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:01:20 PM EST
    It doesn't make a difference, though.  I'm glad Obama won...with my vote in there for him.

    Change from, the GOP is change (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:32:39 PM EST
    I can believe in.

    Where do you get your information? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by hairspray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:41:39 AM EST
    Clinton supporters assuming GOP talking points? Ha! what a lol.  It has been the naderites and the unschooled who have picked up those points. Oh yes, Josh Marshall, Newseeek reporters, MSNBC and the list goes on.  They are not C supporters.

    And um (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM EST
    it wasn't Clinton supporters saying Al Gore was boring. It was the media. Ya know, the same ones that love Obama for the time being.

    Err... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:47:34 AM EST
    I knew many Clinton supporters who said Gore was boring... I wasnt one of them.

    Gore went boring on us (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    when he chose Lieberman over Bill.

    Talk about boring.  Double dose.


    Don't understand where you got this (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    I always feel amused at how quickly some Clinton supporters use Republican talking points. Remember, Gore was also "boring" in 2000. Look, where it got us.

    from my comment, but OK, whatever.

    Not a Clinton supporter (but definitely a Clinton defender from all the BS shoveled her way), didn't use any Republican talking points, and didn't say anything about 'boring'.


    I just learned that Jimmy Carter (none / 0) (#138)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:35:31 PM EST
    used his people from Georgia for much of his team. I guess you prefer the same path for Obama.

    I guess the outcome might be different.

    (PS I am still hoping Summers stays as one of many economic advisors, no mas)


    not sure what you mean here (none / 0) (#141)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:33:05 PM EST
    I was assuming the comment (none / 0) (#150)
    by coigue on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    "the more things change, the more they stay the same" was a criticism to Obama for not bringing in new people.

    I am not sure I would be comfortable with hiom bringing in a bunch of unknowns from his past associations, like Carter did.


    He could (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by liminal on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:33:36 AM EST
    bore our friends and enemies to death, ya?  John Kerry - the United State's new superweapon!

    Makes me wonder (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lilburro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    what Bill Richardson wants.  Wasn't he supposed to be good at this kind of stuff?

    Time to collect!

    Ohmigod! I'd take Kerry over BR (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:21:46 AM EST
    ... any day for just about any job, but especially something as important as Secretary of State.

    Kerry is intelligent, articulate and informed. I'm willing to believe that Richardson is actually better than he seemed during his Presidential campaign. But there's no denying his penchant for saying foolish and ill-considered things-- disastrous traits in a diplomat, IMO.


    Kerry is well suited for the Senate. . . (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:44:19 AM EST
    where malleability is desirable.

    A Secretary of State will, from time to time, be called upon to express clearly and forcefully the policy of the United States.  Everything I've seen of Kerry in public indicates he's not well suited to making that kind of presentation.

    Except perhaps (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by cal1942 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:54:16 AM EST
    the way he stood up against pressure from people in both parties regarding BCCI.

    I think a Kerry not running for higher office has a bit of backbone that some are either unaware or choose to ignore.


    So Wes Clark really isn't there at all. Pity! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by hairspray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:43:00 AM EST
    Clark is more suited ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    for Defense Secretary.

    If he isn't on the short list for that position, my head will explode.


    That will be youtube worthy... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:04:10 PM EST
    because he wont be on the short list.  Prove me wrong Obama, prove me wrong!

    Not eligible by law (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    I do believe.

    Have to be out of the military 10 years to be considered for 'civilian head of the DOD.'


    You (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    sound like a great candidate for telling him he doesn't get the job.

    Phooey (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:56:57 AM EST
    I'm sorry - but after all the stink about how Hillary was so ignorant as to have voted for the Iraq war resolution, and how brilliant Obama was by contrast, I would like someone who was brilliant and not dumb at the time of the crisis. I would like someone with a level head. There were some Senators and Representatives, you know, who did vote against the resolution and I think they should be rewarded.

    One Biden is enough.

    I don't think Kucinich (none / 0) (#101)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    will be on the short list for SoS!

    To tell the truth... (none / 0) (#116)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:39:04 PM EST
    Kucinich is the only one that would interest me.

    But Obama has already dismissed him as a "spice".


    Not sure what I would (none / 0) (#117)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    put Kucinich in charge of.  But not diplomacy!

    Why not? (none / 0) (#125)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:34:52 PM EST
    "diplomatic" (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:53:08 PM EST
    is NOT the first adjective that comes to mind with Kucinich.  "passsionate" does.  Give him something he is passionate about.

    He is passionate (none / 0) (#140)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:21:31 PM EST
    about diplomacy.

    I think he should be a secretary (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by blogtopus on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    Go get coffee, take a dictation, order new stamps... hope he knows shorthand.

    How about a thread for preferred Cabinet assignments, BTD?

    We need Democrats in the Senate (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:14:06 AM EST
    Keep them all there.

    Kerry would not be (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    replaced by a Republican, he's from Massachusetts.  If Kerry goes to State, I can't imagine anybody other than Barney Frank getting the appointment and then easily winning election.

    IIRC, no more appointments in MA (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    The legislature changed the law in '04 to keep Mittens from replacing Kerry.

    So, I think there would be a special election, which is good news all around.


    Correct--unless leg changes law again! n/t (none / 0) (#104)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:40:30 PM EST
    Kerry/Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JoeCHI on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    Rumor has it that Obama promised both Kerry and Richardson SOS in exchange for their endorsements.

    Apparently Richardson has two close associates who are under sealed indictments which are expected to become public soon.

    Hence, the SOS is going to Kerry.

    Don't quote me on any of this.  ;)

    "Rumor has it", really? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    That is a couple steps below anonymous sources in my book.

    In the case of Richardson. . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:22:05 AM EST
    there are so many rumors about so many different issues, that the principle of "where there's smoke. . ." might apply.

    I tell you what is not a rumort (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:25:57 AM EST
    The man is dumber than a bag of hammers.

    Not sure I agree, BTD ... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    most hammers have a sharp side.

    right?!? (none / 0) (#42)
    by JoeCHI on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    BTD, you forgot your Go Gators for your (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:16:31 AM EST
    Saturday open thread. You are doomed to lose to Vandy now.

    Game is at 8 (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    There will be a separate GO Gators Open Thread.

    And you are banned from this site for your blasphemy.


    Leave Teresa alone!!111! (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    She's suffered enough this season between the Vols and TN being the heart of McCain Country!

    No kidding. I think we were one of four (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    states where McCain did better than Bush! And we lost the state House and Senate! I'm ready to move.

    lol, my world is upside down. My brother (none / 0) (#24)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:30:28 AM EST
    and I are trying to figure out who needs to lose to set up the Gators for the championship game. Texas, Penn St, both?

    If Bama stays undefeated and you beat them in the SEC championship, I think a rematch in the big game would be fun.


    Neither (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:32:39 AM EST
    If the Gators win out, they will be in the Championship game.

    Isn't Texas ahead in the BCS poll? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    What if they win out? Will both of you jump Penn St because of strength of schedule?

    PSU is going down today. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    They have a history of performing poorly at Nile Kinnick Stadium.  And it is snowing in teh IC today.  We're going to feed Shonn Greene the ball all day and run right over the Nitty Lions.

    /Go Hawks!


    Penn State has already lost in my mind (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Raskolnikov on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    Our boys can pull it off, looking forward to this one...Go Hawks!

    MileHi...Vols are playing Wyoming, the only (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    team with as bad an offense as we have. First drive, we are already in their territory, our young quarterback threw an interception and it was run back inside the five. Touchdown Wyoming.

    Not a good way to honor Coach Fulmer guys.

    I checked and I get the Iowa/PSU game so I'll watch some of it while I check in on AL/LSU. I want to see snow!


    The Vols are at home, right? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:47:20 PM EST
    No reason at all to lose to the Cowboys.  

    Luckily, its not snowing like it did in the Dakota's yesterday.  Just flurries in Iowa City today.  

    It's a late game for us, so that means everyone will be well prepared/lubricated for the game.  I'd love to be hanging-out on Melrose Ave. today!


    Yes, at home. Another interception for a TD. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    Down 13-0 at the half! Number 1 and 2 running backs are hurt and didn't even dress. The crowd is booing and it's a disaster.

    Go Iowa! Go Gators! It's hard for me to say go Bama. :)

    Former player talking at the half says the team has no heart. They are so upset over Fulmer, they have no energy. You'd think they'd play hard for him some how. I'm ready for this season to end! We had a five star quarterback with a red shirt and two years backing up Ainge and he is a mental wreck on the field. Unreal. (I just needed someone to talk to. My husband left the house and I called my brother and he turned it off. Everyone else I know is there.)


    Seems like they were on somewhat... (none / 0) (#147)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    ...of an emotional overload.  One of the hazards of firing your coach mid-season and not cutting the ties right away.  

    I think they should have appointed an assistant coach to finish out the season for Fulmer if they're going to do that.  

    That first INT was a tough one--the QB should have taken the sack instead of trying to throw it.

    I hope things get better for the Vols--it may take awhile, but I'm sure they'll be back.


    Well it's almost kickoff time (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by lilburro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:29:57 PM EST
    so we are about to find out.



    Now that was a game! (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:39:08 PM EST
    A real Big 10 battle to the very end.  Sorry we had to ruin your season--both teams played their hearts out.  Sure made our season though.  

    Plus, we're just happy to be going to a bowl eligible this year.

    Way to go Hawkeyes!


    Boo (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:54:58 PM EST
    I think you really messed this up for us!  How selfish. :)

    Yeah, it is pretty sad... (none / 0) (#149)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    ...when all you have to do is win out and hope Michigan beats OSU.  But, at least now you guys have a blue-print (and game film) on how to beat PSU.  

    Congratulations! I switched over from the (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:08:14 PM EST
    Bama/LSU game to see the last few minutes. That was fun but I feel sort of sorry for Joe Pa.

    I feel sorry (none / 0) (#134)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    because now he'll probably coach another year, and it's like god, enough already...

    We need to just let him and Bowden play (none / 0) (#136)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:48:59 PM EST
    a game of poker or something and get it over with. Neither will quit until they have a safe lead in wins.

    What a job...he has the best seat in the house and doesn't have to do a thing! :)


    Hmm (none / 0) (#112)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    I'd like to root for the Hawks, but actually it occurs to me that Michigan State's title hopes might hinge on the Hawkeyes losing today!  It's complicated.

    The best laid plans... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:22:42 AM EST
    When a Jefferson County deputy unleashed pepper spray at unruly protesters on the first night of the Democratic National Convention, he did not know that his targets were undercover Denver police officers...

    According to a use-of-force police report obtained by the ACLU, undercover Denver detectives staged a struggle with a police commander to get pulled out of the crowd without blowing their cover. The commander knew they were working undercover, and the plan was to pull them out of the crowd and pretend they were under arrest so protesters would be none the wiser.

    A Jefferson County deputy, unaware of the presence of undercover police, thought that the commander was being attacked and used pepper spray on the undercover officers.


    ...often come back to bite you in the arse.

    Let me just say: (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:23:13 AM EST
    I was for Kerry's selection as Secretary of State, before I was against it.


    Kerry will make it harder (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:25:41 AM EST
    for Obama to receive broadbased support for his foreign policy from the American public.  That's an important consideration IMO.  It's not like the country is 48% wingnuts who will hate Obama's SoS no matter what.

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    About 40% of Americans think Kerry is some kind of embellishing, effete, traitor. To them he's a living Neville Chamberlain.

    Of course, 46% of Americans probably ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:34:27 AM EST
    think the same about Obama.

    If it's a 100% subset, there's no problem (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    but why risk it?

    Anyway, I think we can do better than Kerry for State. I always really liked Madeleine Albright. Let's find someone like her.


    Anthony Lake? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:48:08 AM EST
    Clearly not (none / 0) (#103)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    Do you know anyone who voted for McCain?  It's ridiculous to assume that everyone who voted for McCain thinks Obama is an evil person.

    In the most recent poll Obama had a 35% disapproval rating.  And 10% of those were only "somewhat" negative, meaning they hardly think Obama is a terrorist or traitor or anything of the sort.  So let's try to be a little real.


    And about 40% of Americans (none / 0) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:56:10 AM EST
    also think that Clinton and Albright ordered firing of Cruise Missiles to "wag the dog" and distract from Monica, 35% of them also think that Clinton should have been tried for "treason" for selling missile technology to China. Again, what is your point? :-)

    Yes a big Repub talking point at the time.... (none / 0) (#143)
    by sallywally on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:13:25 PM EST
    People in my office were insufferable about it. Too bad, because if the MSM, the Congress, the right wingnut radio folks, etc., had not been so consumed with CDS and so focused on Monica and impeachment, Clinton might have gotten bin Laden back then.

    Actually, (none / 0) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    this may be the only point that is worthy of consideration, not silliness like "he is boring". However, I feel that by being a Senator for a while, Kerry has cultivated good working relationships across the aisle. I can see Sen. Kerry generating enough support for his decisions from people like Sen. Hagel, Sen. Lugar, Gen. Powell,  NSA Snowcroft and others. Such bipartisan support will help Obama receive broadbased support for his foreign policy from the American public. 30% of Republicans will never agree to what any Democrat says on foreign policy.

    Ever since Nixon appointed Kissinger (none / 0) (#49)
    by ding7777 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:52:13 AM EST
    National Security Advisor, SOS is little respected (and rarely listened to)by the POTUS.

    Kerry is such a sour-puss loser (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by DFLer on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:37:37 AM EST
    sorry to say. His appt. to SOS would not be a thrill for me.

    You could send Richardson to the UN, where he could schmooze and also use his bi-lingual skills. I don't see him as SOS either.

    I'm looking for a high-level appointment for a woman....pdq. Caroline Kennedy? I don't know enough about her cv to know if the UN spot would be a good fit. She surely has other languages besides English, so that's good.

    Oh. My. God. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:10:03 PM EST
    I like Caroline Kennedy very much, but she isn't even remotely qualified to be SOS.  She is also an extremely private person, and the chances of her taking any kind of high-pressure public position are close to nil.

    Kennedy has been mentioned for UN Ambassador (none / 0) (#135)
    by DFLer on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:12:45 PM EST
    Payoff (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    The appointment of Kerry would smack of a political payoff - to the extent that Kerry was involved in featuring Obama at the convention in 2004.

    When it comes to foreign affairs, Kerry has had nothing to say of interest to anyone.

    It's like Bush appointing some crony to FEMA.

    I want a fresh start.
    Kerry is like 3 day old fish.

    I'm bugged.

    Kerry is a whiner (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycvoter on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:59:30 AM EST
    I'm not an expert and don't know who should be sec of state but when I think of it being kerry and him being our face to the world during difficult times, I'm not inspired.

    Something that is bothering (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by ajain on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:00:07 PM EST
    Why aren't more female, African-American, Latino, Asian American names being floated around? This is something that is bothering me. All the top posts seem to be going to white men. Not that they shouldn't be there, but a little more diversity please.

    Some MCMer on public TV or radio was dissing (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:19:45 PM EST
    Bill Clinton for wasting time by following through on his promise to make his administration and cabinet reflect the reality of the American population.

    Yes, indeedy. Reagan and Bush were being praised for how they set up their administrations, and Obama was said to be following Reagan's type of implementation. The important part was early and extremely private vetting of staff positions, with cabinet coming second. (Reagan began in the April of election year.)

    I do recall that Clinton did not have as easy a time in finding people with more current experience of working in the federal government bcz--reality dose here--Dems had been out of administrative power for 12 years and Carter's people were older, etc.

    So, Clinton mined state governments, universities, think tanks, some Congress people, and friends.

    Oh, on Charlie Rose it was thought to be a good thing to have Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff--bcz he was an attack dog (the good cop/bad cop meme the MCM is just luuuuuvin') and bcz he's not part of Obama's inner circle. But, actually, while Rahm was nominally for Hillary, it was strongly implied he was actually working closely with Obama all along.... So, that makes him more inner than outer circle. But, he is not known as an inner circle member. Thus, his appointment can be called better than Clinton's of his friend Mack McClarty.

    Again, a comparison was made to the Reagan administration in that the Washington outsider went with a Washington insider, and both Emanuel and James Baker are considered take no prisoners pols/staffers.

    I don't really know how "bad" the Clinton transition was. I do recall the MCM getting on his case for not moving faster, but, then I also heard yesterday on a public radio discussion program that cabinet appointments were actually accomplished faster than with previous adminsitrations. But I have not studied this stuff.

    But, I agree: Seems like the known roster of players. With very few women even mentioned so far. Interesting, given the attitudes shown toward Hillary during the primary by the Obama campaign and bots.


    Susan Rice's (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM EST
    name is also doing the rounds. I guess, not too many people here will be thrilled if the name of Samantha Powers is floated. Rumor has it that Janet Napolitano and Sheila Bair are also being considered for very high profile positions.

    I've read outsiders pushing Sheil Bair for Treasry (none / 0) (#93)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:08:48 PM EST
    based on her very good performance as head of FDIC and being a Repub and a woman. A threefer.

    Susan Rice has been a spokesperson for Obama and ought to be named to something decent.


    Sheila Bair as Tresury Sec. (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:49:56 PM EST
    Bair has done an outstanding job at the FDIC. And she has been a lone voice in the wilderness at the Federal level (except for Hillary)  for helping homeowners, preferably before they hit foreclosure or bankruptcy. She is running a test project for homeowner assistance with mortgages as the now FDIC run IndyMac Bank.

    Also, Bair does not have $$$ ties to Wall Street. Almost  all those guys on stage with Obama yesterday are way too connected to Wall Street. Let's get a Treasury Sec. who can look at this mess with a dispassionate eye.


    I wouldn't expect more then 4 of the 15 or (none / 0) (#86)
    by tigercourse on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    so cabinet members to be women. Maybe 5. As for AAs, I think Eric Holder is up for AG and Housing and Urban development may go to Shirley Franklin of Atlanta (a twofer).

    I agree, but I'm (none / 0) (#126)
    by mg7505 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    fine as long as the Top Dog is black (though I would have preferred a woman ... named Hillary ...)

    No! No! No! Nooooooo! (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by esmense on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    Please. No.

    Kerry's pro-war/anti-war votes (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:31:09 PM EST
    should give us pause...as they did me as candidate for President.

    I also remember a particularly bizarre speech he gave in Seattle at the Magnuson Dinner/Awards in 2002 or 03...very belligerant militarily re Iraq, etc.

    Nope.  Not Kerry for SoS.

    Maybe we could send him to the Court of St. James.  They could afford the post and his style would fit right in...

    I think it's clear by now that a Dem's AUMF vote (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    is now important only if that person in any way stands in Obama's way (Hillary, some of the other primary opponents during the primaries--and, going forward, maybe if those Dems oppose Obama on some of his proposals?). When he got the nomination, he had no problem with Biden's vote or even his cheerleading for going after Saddam and Iraq. It's a non-issue for Obama now.

    Which makes the MCMer comment in BTD's earlier post about Feingold posing "problems" as chair for Foreign Relations all the more interesting-- and possibly prescient.

    The war is off the radar for now. And The Next Big War Effort will most likely be Afghanistan being ramped up, way up.

    Unless Dennis Ross has more influence than we know within an Obama administration, and he gets his way with Iran. Where does Rahm Emanuel, who fought for Israel in the first Gulf War, stand? That may also have an effect on Obama policy.

    Intersting times, huh?


    Yup. Fascinating.... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    I wasn't only referring to the AUMF vote, tho.  As I recall, Kerry voted AGAINST the first Gulf War and for the second one...which certainly does raise the issue of Rahm's history and those insider relationships with Obama.

    Re Afghanistan...yup....up, up, up.  No doubt providing many manufacturing jobs in the US replacing all that equipment.  Guess we'll have to think of it as a stimulus package.

    Dunno where they'll find the troops, tho.


    Troops leaving Iraq will get retraining and then (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    go directly to Afghanistan.

    No rest for the poor grunts.


    It's worse than that... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    retraining, I mean.

    Something like 30% of the forces are not 'volunteer Army.'

    The military is broken and now so is the backup.  Some legacy for the pro-military faction in politics and government.  


    Kerry-McCain (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    Let's all keep in mind that it was Kerry who wanted McCain as his running mate only 5 years ago.

    Judgment should matter more than superficial paldom.  Neither of these guys has ever gotten over their Vietnam War experiences and their personal need and reach for glory and status.  That's why Bill Clinton didn't need to send America to war unnecessarily.

    Policy matters.  It shouldn't be personal when it comes to foreign affairs.

    Kerry would be a very risky choice.

    Kevin Phillips not euphoric, to put it mildly-- (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:04:02 PM EST
    Kevin Phillips was on Bill Moyers' Journal last night, and he noted the missing player at Obama's press conference Friday--labor. Lots of investor class advisers (plus new chief of staff Emanuel very up front and visible, and VP Biden), but no one from labor. Phillips said Robert Reich sometimes addresses labor issues, but he is not of labor in the way the Banker Boyz and banksters are of the controlling investor class (which does not include workers with money in IRA's and 401K's--we have zero clout; to call us part of the "investor class" is Bizarro World terminology).

    Phillips did not sound very optimistic. In the past he has said it will probably require something as dire as the Great Depression to shake American voters out of their propaganda-filled world view and see that there needs to be real change. So far, this has not been bad enough is what I took from his discussion. Good segment.

    Toward the closing of the segment, Phillips said "We live in the age of disappointment." Oh, my.

    Available as video on the web, with transcript coming soonish.

    Later Friday night on PBS was a euphoria segment on Charlie Rose. Not so interesting as Phillips, but telling in its way. The discussion had two historians and one political journalist waxing eloquent in their praise of Obama. Michael Beschloss, Alan Brinkley, and David Remnick were all aglow with the joy of Tuesday night in Grant Park--altho' Remnick said that in a week or so journalists would "climb out of the tank" and begin to actually analyze Obama and his actions. Hey, first time I've heard a journalist admit to being in the tank! He seemed pleased to be there.

    Brinkley said Obama was the greatest orator to become president in the last 100 or so years. FDR was "ok" and Reagan was great but didn't write his own words. (Obama does?? And he knows this how? This is from a historian!)

    Video not up yet--and site makes finding transcripts difficult, so I don't now if one will be up. It used to be great for transcripts, but that was some years ago.

    Does anyone know if NBC put out a transcript of its election night coverage? I'd love to read the Tavis Smiley discussion with Tom Brokaw (and Brian Williams?) of how Obama affects race issues going forward.  

    Any video that y'all know of?

    Happy Post-Election Weekend!

    Almost forgot this comment on Rose: that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:48:27 PM EST
    echoed his early primary chant of "Yes, we can," in his acceptance speech Tuesday night, but said the words very softly and without much energy was somehow a good thing, that it indicated he felt the weight of the responsibility he's taken on as president. And that the crowd also seemed to chant the words back quietly indicated they, his supporters, understood not everything could be changed quickly or at all. Or something close to that.


    When I watched the speech, I was struck by how Obama didn't even seem to want to read the words "Yes, we can," almost ran them together so they wouldn't stand out. But he did say them, did echoe his early primary rally appearances. That he did so with so little energy or seeming conviction struck me as very odd.

    I still don't know what was going on, but that it could be spun by a Kool-Aid filled historian to be a "good thing" struck me as even odder.

    Did anyone else feel Obama seemed uncomfortable during that part of this speech Tuesday night?


    I thought it was ok to echo (none / 0) (#144)
    by sallywally on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:21:21 PM EST
    the language but I didn't think it would've been a good idea to use it in the same way as during the campaign. So I didn't notice him seeming uncomfortable so much as I was thinking I hope he doesn't do the primary campaign speech thing.

    As President-Elect, I think he needed to come across more "dignified" in a way - not like a preacher. He was accepting the Presidency and speaking to the whole nation from that standpoint.

    But the idea spouted on Rose that Obama was weighed down and everyone had realized things can't be done so fast, IMO, is ridiculous! What a bunch of self-important fools.

    I think Obama seems fine with his new job!


    I prefer (none / 0) (#5)
    by cal1942 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:48:22 AM EST
    Bill Richardson.  I believe he may well have a grasp of our position in the world and the changes needed in foreign policy, not just regarding Iraq, etc. but our posture and presence around the world.  The President is the last word in foreign policy (unless Congress decides to force his hand - don't hold your breath)and needs around him individuals at high levels of the foreign policy community that understand our strengths, growing weaknesses and be nimble enough to understand what are and what are NOT our real long term interests. The what are NOT may be the most important recognition of all.

    When has Bill Richardson shown himself (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by tigercourse on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    to have a good grasp on ... anything? He seems like a bit of an idiot. "Let's drain the great lakes to water the West" What politician with half a brain says something like that?

    Yes and no...dumb as dirt (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    but has a good record of personal negotiation in some very iffy situations abroad.

    Just keep him out of the limelight...which he seems to crave.


    His ideas (none / 0) (#151)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 02:47:26 PM EST
    as Governor of New Mexico concerning Great Lakes water is why I had him ranked at the bottom among presidential primary candidates.

    I'm a lifelong Michigander.

    But his complete unsuitability for the presidency doesn't disqualify him for other positions.


    Black coach numbers lowest in 15 years (none / 0) (#43)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    Not that it was great 15 years ago.

    Here is a question for those of you who are avid college football fans.  What will it take to reverse this trend and improve on it?  What is its cause?

    Finally, how about women as major sport coaches and as ADs?  Why are there more men coaching women's basketball than women coaching men's basketball?

    I don't think the major schools have more (none / 0) (#48)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    men coaching the women's teams. At least it doesn't seem that way to me.

    I only know one women's coach with the personality (I would use another word, but...) to coach men and the Lady Vols aren't giving her up. :)


    I meant in comparison (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    I can think of several men women BK coaches but not a single woman men's BK coach.

    Do yo think it takes a particular type of personality to coach men's major sports succesfully?  If that is true, why would that peronality type not be found among women?  

    BTW I think the Rutgers womens BK coach (shame I can't recall her name riht now) could coach anywhere.  There are others.


    C. Vivian Stringer n/t (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    Yeah, I forgot about her. She could do it. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:11:24 PM EST
    I think they would have a hard time recruiting so I don't expect it to happen any time soon, if ever.

    Not to mention... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    ...that she's doing what she loves doing--shaping the lives of young women and preparing them for life after college.



    How then, can we make progress? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    Wouldn't it be game changing if there were succesful women and minority coaches and ADs in all sports at all levels?

    Does it always take a Jackie Robinson or an Obama or a Hillary Clinton?  We are wasting a lot of our talent by not pursuing diversity aggresively.


    We CAN'T make progress (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:55:49 PM EST
    until the people doing the hiring make progress...and until the players make progress...particularly difficult in the realm of machomale sports.

    C'mon...this is not rocket science.

    Maybe some PHD candidate will do a survey of men in sports to see who they favored in the Democratic Primary.  Any guesses about the % for Hillary?  I'd say she didn't make a blip on their radar screen.


    Sure we can make progress (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    It will just take a long time and many cases like this one.

    This is why the judiciary system is so fundamental to change.

    If we had waited on desegregation until the people making the decisions made progress, we would not have gotten where we are today.


    What? That's nuts in my book. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    You can't sue your way into a coaching job!

    Jackie Robinson made a leap because of ONE person...Branch Rickey, the one who hired him and gave him the opportunity to prove his worth.  He did, no thanks to the fans, the other players, even his teammates.

    And hiring is and was the issue with Affirmative Action.

    Hiring power, in government and in the private sector is huge in making change.  Or not.


    No it isn't nuts (none / 0) (#124)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    It should not take an Obama or a Robinson or a Clinton to get equal opportunity.  If I were in charge of civil rights at Justice I would seriously consider bringing a lawsuit against the NCAA over the severe underrepresentation of blacks in the football head coaching ranks.  

    Ahhh...but not one (none / 0) (#129)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:46:09 PM EST
    about the NON-representation of women in the coaching ranks of ANT professional men's team?



    Not ANT....ANY...jeez (none / 0) (#130)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:46:53 PM EST
    Unfortunately, the pros are a harder target (none / 0) (#139)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:46:01 PM EST
    As are women coaching men.  As you pointed out it is the hiring process that drives these issues.  For the head football coach it is documented that 30% of applicants for head football coach were minorities but only two got hired.  In the case of women coaching men, the applicant pool isn't there so the only legal shot is to show, as the woman in the case above did, that the applicant is the victim of sex discrimination when compared to the actual hire.

    Of course persuassion and changing attitudes need to be part of the strategy.   The Settle Mariners just interviewed Kin Ng (of the LA Dodgers front office) for their open GM spot.  She made the final cut but wasn't hired.  Somewhere along the line she needs to get the chance to demonstrate that she can be as succesful as Theo Epstein or Kenny Williams.  Lord knows she could not be worse than Bill Bavasi or many of the other men now holding GM slots.


    Jeez...the Mariners REALLY (none / 0) (#142)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:11:22 PM EST
    need a change of luck...or something!

    We love our Ichiro...too bad they didn't hire her and break the ice.  She'd have been accepted here easily.


    Hey Magic Johnson was for Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:24:46 PM EST
    For which I give him a tremendous amount of credit (even as an old Celtics fan).

    Another reason to call him 'Magic!' (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:04:20 PM EST
    So....that's one!  Got any more?

    Here is one article from earlier this year (none / 0) (#122)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:24:14 PM EST

    I always did like Zo (I am a Big East and Georgetown fan).  It's also good to know that despite Schilling, Red Sox owner Luchino was on the good side.  Of course the evil Yankees were for Rudy.


    Don't give up on it (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    Obama's win does give hope thogh we have so much further to go.  I hope that one of the legacies of the Democratic primary is the commitment to finding qualified candidates for jobs including candidates that might have a different approach.  We need to think out of the box not only in sports but in all fields.

    I'm ok with Sen. Kerry (none / 0) (#52)
    by WS on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:53:35 AM EST
    as SoS.  He needs a consolation prize for losing in 2004, makes the right-wingers heads explode, and allows Feingold to be Senate Foreign Relations committee chair.  

    Clark seems the obvious choice ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    for Defense.

    There really isn't another Democrat more qualified for the position.

    But will Obama be willing to pull out from under the bus?

    Technically. Clark can't be (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ding7777 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    Secretary of Defense until May 2010 - must be a civilian for alt least 10 years.

    Congress could issue a special waiver as they did for George Marshall but would Obama spend his political capital on that?


    Oh, that's right ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    thought he'd retired earlier than that.

    Proven Tired Out Worn Out Loser. By (none / 0) (#85)
    by seabos84 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:40:52 PM EST
    the standards of the last 28 years of fascists, he's great - as are most of the clintonistas.

    boring. a class of Dems born into affluence, raised on losing, nurtured on getting their butts kicked, afraid of lying fascists and afraid of fascist talking points

    and too incompetent to do much more than hide under their desks and quake.

    I honestly don't have an answer, (I do have my own 50+++ hour a week job to deal with) but I'd like to see a new generation in there - people with ideas other than cowering in front of the fascist lie machine

    which, by the way, hasn't shut down.


    I'm not excited about any of the top mentions (none / 0) (#88)
    by esmense on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:52:04 PM EST
    Kerry is more knowledgeable, I believe, than he is articulate -- but articulate is incredibly important in this position. He's a pontificator, not a communicator.

    Richardson's experience speaks to more gravitas than his persona. But, once again, we're talking about a position in which the ability to communicate, both verbally and non-verbally, at a very high and often quite subtle level is  important -- more important than in other posts.

    In my view, both Kerry and Richardson, in different ways, fail to reach what is needed. But if these were my only two choices, I guess Richardson would get the edge.

    The problem is, I'm having trouble imagining anyone among the party's most powerful establishment in this position. No one seems up to the task.

    Wes Clark for SoS. (none / 0) (#90)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    No question he's up to the task.  Or Hillary.

    C'mon guys...this is beyond obvious.

    Problem is, will the establishment let Obama choose either of them?  I doubt it.


    What appears obvious, unfortunately (4.20 / 5) (#118)
    by esmense on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:02:26 PM EST
    is that the party's not ready for leadership that includes women as authoritative, and potentially powerful players in their own right -- beyond the more traditional role of supporter to male power -- as Hillary Clinton. The only women I've heard serious mention of in terms of these appointments are women who played the feminine, traditional, loyal supporter role for Obama from the beginning. Which isn't to say they are not competent and experienced women -- only that, in our political life, real power and authority is still seen as essentially male, and women still have a lot of work to do -- and resistence to overcome -- to make that change.

    I get the feeling that the party wants to turn the page on the gender aspects of this election. But shoving it under the rug won't make it go away. The issues will come up again down the line.

    Right now, women have the power to do what the male politicians believe serves the nation's interest. Some day, perhaps, they'll be more of them willing to claim, and fight for, the power to do what they determine -- based in their experience and knowledge -- is best for the country.


    As evidenced by the "1" (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:07:25 PM EST
    you got from Gobbluth...whoever that is!

    Unhappily, you are correct...it appears.  We shall see...


    Heh, page has been turned (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:15:12 PM EST
    and I believe they are jumping up and down on the rug as I type. {sigh}

    Invisible women, working twice as hard as a man seems to be the preferred position for now . . . or at least that's the message I'm getting. All this "transformational" talk and no mention of gender. And we get????


    Richard Holbrooke (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:14:58 PM EST
    Bit of a hawk, for sure, but the most skilled, knowledgeable and savvy diplomat there is, by a wide margin.

    Sadly...he has a nasty smear (none / 0) (#120)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    on his record...I'd say that rules him out.

    Otherwise, yes...he'd be great.


    What nasty smear? (none / 0) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:44:59 AM EST
    I'm unaware of any nasty smears on Holbrooke's record.  What are you referring to?

    Oops...senior moment. (none / 0) (#148)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 01:00:19 PM EST
    Sheesh...you are correct.

    I was thinking of Samuel Berger.


    Oh, I see (none / 0) (#152)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:51:31 PM EST
    Yeah, big, big diff.  I can't imagine in my wildest dreams Holbrooke doing anything so undignified.

    The Berger thing isn't really a smear, though.  Turns out he really did sneak papers out in his socks.  Which is a real shame because he's also a very canny and thoughtful guy, but he's really done as a public servant as a result.


    Inexact language.... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:21:58 AM EST
    my specialty these days.

    By 'smear' I meant on his record...not the other meaning of a smear...being a lie.


    Yep. Agree. (none / 0) (#153)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:19:40 AM EST
    Richard Holbrooke (none / 0) (#109)
    by bob h on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    is best for SofS.

    Pray (none / 0) (#123)
    by Andy08 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:26:06 PM EST
    it is not Kerry.... Terrible choice.