Obama's Second Term Cabinet: Who's On Deck?

Politico reports on possible replacements for some of President Obama's cabinet officials who may be departing at the beginning of his second term.

Eric Holder today said during a speech at the Baltimore University School of Law that he hasn't decided if he's staying or not.

The possible replacements named by Politico include Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano. She's way too law and order for my taste, and I hope she doesn't replace Holder. Politico reports she may not want the job if she's going to run for McCain's senate seat in 2016, and the White House may be considering her for the Supreme Court.

Hillary has previously indicated she might leave. Who would replace her? Possibilities include Susan Rice and John Kerry.

Who would you like to see leave or come onboard?

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | First Asst. AUSA in LA Demoted for Online Commentary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I see Obama received his binder full of women (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:16:35 PM EST

    Definitely like the idea of (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    Granholm for AG.  What a huge plus she would be for the aggressive and smart admin of justice in the right areas, plus the positive PR factor.

    I'm fine with Rice moving up to SoS too.  As I read that article the list of potentials seems too (white) male heavy in the top tier positions.  It would be a shame and embarrassment if the women and minorities were only given 2d tier cabinet posts.  I'm sure O and his team are aware of the optics issue.

    She's so charismatic though (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:52:55 PM EST
    I wouldn't want to see that wasted at AG.

    Not wasted, maybe needed (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:25:10 PM EST
    if she were to aggressively take on some of the 1% crooks and maybe election thieves who've been overlooked so far.

    Likable charismatic personality won't hurt her.  She may need to tone it down in her speechmaking though ...


    Agreed. Jennifer Granholm (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:37:04 PM EST
    would be great as Attorney General.  She was listed at one point as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court by President Obama (for the David Souter position).  Governor Granholm is a graduate of UC Berkeley and Harvard Law.  Don't know how her record on Current TV would play into opposition fodder in confirmation hearings, but I think she would be confirmed.

    Granholm strikes me easily (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:26:02 PM EST
    as a natural pol and performer.  She needs to have an audience.  Not exactly a great fit for Scotus in that sense.

    I want her as AG or remaining at Current, then on to replace either Boxer or DiFi for the senate.


    She can replace DiFi :) (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:36:57 PM EST
    I think her and Boxer could be n interesting duo . . .

    Granholm would be excellent at AG (none / 0) (#18)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:02:01 PM EST
    My second choice would be Sheldon Whitehouse, but he is definitely a scrapper, and we still need him kicking a$$ and taking names in the Senate.

    Geithner has said he's leaving, and it (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:26:26 PM EST
    can't happen soon enough.

    The downside? Possible replacements include more of the same Wall Street tools. Erskine Bowles of Catfood Commission fame, is a frequent mention. He once worked for Morgan Stanley and sits on several Corporate boards.

    Another name that has popped up of late is Laurance Fink. Fink is currently president and CEO of BlackRock, a large multinational investment management corporation. Another tool of Wall Street.

    While I think Obama needs to look in a different direction, Joseph Stiglitz comes to mind, that seems very unlikely. So, we get four more years of the same coddling and kissing up to Wall Street, and four more years of Wall Street whining as they continue to rack up record profits.

    I will be very surprised to see any stiffening of the administration's backbone with regard  to the banks'  mortgage fraud practices. And still no sympathy for or any effort to help homeowners.

    Sadly, this is true (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:03:41 PM EST
    Only Wall Streeters and other corporatists will get nominated. We're screwed on this, I'm afraid.

    Andrew Ross Sorkin, (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    financial columnist for the NYT reported last month that Lawrence Summers is a possibility to replace Ben Bernanke as Chair of the Federal Reserve. And, even scarier, that Tim Geithner, who will be leaving Treasury, would be willing to move to the Federal Reserve as Bernanke's replacement.

    Eric Holder, in considering continuing as AG, was reported as saying he was checking to see if he still had gas in the tank--which, to me, if you need to check to see if you have gas in your tank, you do not have gas in the tank.

    If John Kerry becomes Secretary of State, would that open the door for another senate run for Scott Brown?  Maybe, he needs to be out of office for a while so that he can more effectively fade away.   In any event, whomever the cabinet members, I am hopeful that they will take a more visible role in the second term--they are needed to help articulate policies and explain goals.


    More Geithner and Summers? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:12:34 PM EST
    That's the perfect opening for Occupy to get active again. I sincerely wouldn't mind seeing rioting in the streets over those two a$$holes.

    Prefacing with, "I'm not drunk," (none / 0) (#69)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:15:21 PM EST
    I heard a "teaser" on one of the news channels as I was leaving the house regarding a rumor they were going to discuss in their next segment. It went something like, "Is Romney destined for a position in Obama's new term?"

    I mean, I'm all for PPP, but, am I the only person to hear that?



    Didn't hear this one (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:46:17 AM EST
    but if it is the only way to get Mittens to release his tax returns, I am all for it. :-).

    LOL (none / 0) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:44:24 AM EST
    Yup, I'm all for "reaching out, "but let's not get crazy, Barry.

    I Hear Libya... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    ...is in need of an Ambassador and since Mitt seems to be the leading expert on the  Benghazi Consulate...

    Tits on a boar carrying the plague (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:55:39 AM EST
    We are attempting to secure arms, not break up the stashes and sell them off to the highest bidder!!!

    Hey.. (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:37:28 AM EST
    if he made alot of money from the deal, it'd automatically create jobs and be good for America.

    The military will all be fully employed then (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    and the TSA and the ATF and the FBI and the CIA :)

    funny- not really (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jim in St Louis on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 11:10:23 AM EST
    At least not to my mind,  but maybe I need a better sense of humor. Let me try to get out of my comfort zone and look at this from the leftist point of view. ---  Nope, still not finding that funny.  

    Well, there's always Dick Morris (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    over at the Fox Comedy Hour, if it's really comedy you're looking for.

    But, my guess.....

    Uhh,why do I do this?

    Never mind.


    Absolutely not (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:05:28 AM EST
    Romney has to be the man with the hammer or he takes his hammer and goes home.

    Hah! (none / 0) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:45:38 AM EST
    I'm not suggesting it, CG, just axing:)

    Who's on deck? What's on second? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:40:12 PM EST
    One (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:52:54 PM EST
    person whose departure I would welcome is that of Eric "we need the patriot act more than ever" Holder.

    If Obama nominates Erskine Bowles (2.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:25:56 PM EST
    to Treasury, I think we can be assured that Obama is going to get his Grand Bargain come hell or high water.

    And if he chooses Bowles, it's also going to vindicate every person who has been mocked and jeered for his or her criticism of Obama's economic worldview; I can't think of anyone who would be more emblematic of a conservative, pro-austerity, anti-populist economic, fiscal and monetary mindset than Erskine Bowles - unless it was Alan Simpson.

    To my mind, pushing this deficit hysteria, still talking about reforming the safety net programs, still neglecting the housing situation, means that if the economy should continue to improve, it will be in spite of what Obama's doing.  

    And we will continue to see widening gaps in income equality, and the media and the policy-makers will continue to rely on robust Wall Street performance as the only metric that matters - even if companies still aren't spending, even if unemployment continues to hover in the high-7s, even as more people have to do more with less.

    I am not optimistic, as you can tell, but I don't think I have any reason to be.  This is the asterisk - one of them - to the Obama win.  And if we persist in allowing the but-it's-better-than-the-alternative mantra to lull us into thinking there's no point in pushing back, four years from now we're not going to be any better off than we are now.

    Jack Lew (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Politalkix on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:37:56 PM EST
    is being mentioned fairly frequently in the news for Treasury.

    That's who I'm betting they are shooting for (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:54:21 PM EST
    NPR discussion on election day afternoon (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 02:54:18 PM EST
    included a comment Susan Rice may not be considered for SOC due to her comments re Benghazi.  I've seen Berman's name mentioned for SOC and Kyl's but cannot remember for which slot.  

    "SOC?" or "SOS?" (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:04:19 PM EST
    Assume you meant Secretary of State.

    Here's the transcript: (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:08:43 PM EST

    And, yes, I meant SOS.  


    Confirmation hearings would be (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:14:25 PM EST
    all Benghazi, that's for sure.

    Possible candidates (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:27:46 PM EST
    for SOS.

    Among those expected to leave and some names mentioned as possible replacements (in parentheses):

    -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.; U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice; former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman; Deputy Secretary of State William Burns). link

    Here we go again. A Republican on the list for a top position.


    Good news from Condoleezza Rice (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:09:59 AM EST
    on the position of SOS.

    Rice said she wouldn't be interested in succeeding Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State, even if asked to do so by President Barack Obama.

    I always enjoy that in sports too (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:25:52 AM EST
    When someone preemptively says they aren't interested in a job that was never going to be offered to them anyway.

    I also get a chuckle out of these (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:58:50 AM EST
    preemptive announcements when ever and where ever they occur.

    Best chuckle of my morning:

    "Math You Do As A Republican To Make Yourself Feel Better".

    Might be old news for many on this site but this was the first time I saw this skit. To have Faux News come out with that line made it even sweeter.


    I see the story says they are trying to (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:16:06 PM EST
    find a spot for Jennifer Granholm, but they don't speculate which. Maybe Labor or Transportation? those seem to likely ex-Governor spots.

    AG. She was once (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    AG of Michigan.

    oh, very good! I forgot about that (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:29:24 PM EST
    Would like that a lot.

    Noooo (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:58:29 PM EST
    don't take her away from Current!

    Who's a good replacement for Holder? (none / 0) (#11)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:30:20 PM EST
    I think Holder should git while the gittin's good.

    Boehner's "jobs, jobs, jobs" initiatives come January are going to be all about keeping lawyers employed over Fast and Furious (and maybe Benghazi).

    Holder will be too busy with that to do any actual AG work, and since Obama doesn't need to worry about re-election now, maybe we could get someone who'll actually go after the white collar crooks on Wall Street.

    Any good candidates come to mind?

    We are thinking Jennifer Granholm (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    Much as I would miss seeing (none / 0) (#15)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:42:18 PM EST
    her M-F in The War Room on Current TV (7 pm Pacific and repeated later), I think the country would be better served with her replacing Holder. I would envision tougher crackdown on white collar and bankster types and hopefully a more progressive attitude re soft drugs and the WoD generally.  More of a natural liberal than the moderate EH.

    Granholm would be even better (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:02:08 PM EST
    on the Supreme Court.  Perhaps being AG for awhile first would give her an even greater chance of being confirmed as a Justice on the Supreme Court.

    I loved her convention speech.  Probably won't see much of that anymore.


    Or how about Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    Also an ex-AG, and as a Hillary supporter would be a good payback to the Clintons. Also the symmetry with her father being AG.

    Ooof...I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:00:03 PM EST
    she was lieutenant governor of MD and then failed in her bid for the governor's office - she lost to Republican Bob Ehrlich (with emphasis there on the "ick").

    Not that the AG's office requires one to be a great public speaker, but KKT is terrible, and even in her one-on-ones, she isn't particularly good.  Kind of like being a passenger in a car being driven by someone who keeps putting her foot on the brake - it ain't a smooth ride.

    Here's a clip of her on Washington Journal - you decide.

    Criticism of her is that she may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer - I don't know that that's true, but she can come across that way.  


    Only if you take the narrowest (none / 0) (#32)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:34:10 PM EST
    and most unreasonable view of how to judge a person's intelligence, based on speaking style in one early morning interview.

    I saw nothing in the ten minutes I watched to lead me to think she's a quart low in the brain engine.  And on the upside I saw a Catholic woman unhesitatingly stand up for women's right to access to contraceptives, contra the Pope and wackos like Santorum.

    As for AG, public speaking ability has to rank fairly low on the list of important job duties.  Maybe factor #7.   Far more important are her values and views on the major issues as they relate to fed law enforcement, and secondly her commitment to justice and willingness to go after the perps regardless of their status or economic or political power.  Last I checked, the Kennedys have a fine track record on that score and of not playing politics with enforcement of the laws.

    Eric Holder on the other hand seems to have wanted to merely give the appearance of going after Wall St banksters while prosecuting very few.  I don't see a KKT or Granholm being so disingenuous.


    Mr. Zorba and I both (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    definitely think that she is one taco short of a combination plate.

    Wow. Based on??? (3.50 / 2) (#35)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:51:42 PM EST
    Perhaps either of you could point me to the specific part of that interview where she fails to address the Q in a way that reflects a solid understanding of the issue.  I saw a well informed liberal-minded woman who's out there standing up for women's rights against the reactionary forces.

    And all you have so far is a somewhat halting speaking style.

    Amazingly slender and irrelevant evidence to bash someone so definitively.

    But did she run a lousy campaign for gov?  Yep.


    It was NOT just that (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:05:25 PM EST
    interview.  It was her entire tenure as LG, as well as her campaign for governor.  We live in Maryland, and we were less than impressed with her over a number of years.  YMMV.

    Agree on gov campaign, (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:13:32 PM EST
    but did you really see a lot of her covered in the media as LG?  Usually that job, a minor backup position in most states, is done quietly and out of earshot of the public.  But maybe it's a more important position in MD.

    And apparently enough MDers thought she didn't do too badly else she wouldn't have won the party nom for gov.


    The fact that she (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:00:34 PM EST
    won the party nomination is relatively meaningless.  This is the state, after all, where enough Marylanders didn't think "too badly" of Spiro Agnew, and actually elected him governor.

    The interview was offered to (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    provide an example of Townsend's speaking style, which I had criticized in my comment; it was not meant to be the be-all, end-all with which to render an opinion of her intelligence or ability.

    So, now that that's cleared up, I live in MD, and so I have more of a familiarity with her.  In MD, one isn't nominated for governor; you want to run, you file - and if you survive the primary process, you're your party's candidate.

    Townsend was chosen by the Democratic gubernatorial candidate as much for her name - Kennedy - and her gender, as anything else.  KKT is not a liberal in the Kennedy tradition of Ted and Bobby and Bobby, Jr., and there was a lot of talk at the time whether she was the right person for the ticket and whether she would be an asset.  Dems won two terms with her as LG, and much like VPs are sort of given the right of first refusal for the promotion to president, so was KKT more or less given that right with respect to the governor's office.  There were many who feared that she would be overshadowed and overtaken by the more dynamic Republican candidate - and she was.  You'd think with 8 years as LG, the Kennedy name and being a woman, she whould have been a shoo-in - but she wasn't.

    By all means, be skeptical of my take on her - but take into account that my opinion is based on years of her presence in MD politics, and how ineffective she was.  No, public speaking isn't high on the list of requirements for AG, but I would think communications skills, the ability to articulate one's positions, are pretty important in that job.

    Having the Kennedy name doesn't automatically confer competence and skill on someone; it's my opinion that there are others much more suited to that job than she is.


    So presumably KKT was good enough (3.50 / 2) (#59)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:35:54 PM EST
    and maybe smart enough to survive the primaries, assuming further that some debates were held and she at least held her own and D voters were paying attention.

    But as to alternatives, how about stepping up to the plate and offering a few names yourself?  I have offered three, KKT being just one, and I didn't say she was my first choice.  Just preferable to the current AG.

    Your turn ...


    How about Dawn Johnsen? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:54:37 PM EST
    Remember her?

    As a follow up to the rest of your comment, KKT was the presumptive Democratic candidate for governor by virtue of having served two terms as LG.  And party politics being what they are here - as they are in a lot of places, including at the national level - it wasn't expected she would be challenged.  Much to the chagrin of many of us Dems who knew she would be no match for Bob Ehrlich, and we were likely looking at at least one Republican term.

    Finally, I think I'm entitled to express my opinion about any or all of the possibilities being mentioned, whether or not I have a suggestion of my own.


    Hear, hear! (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    I totally agree, Anne.

    C'mon, no one is saying (none / 0) (#63)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    you can't offer criticism.  I am hardly one to want to suppress speech.  But it's good to hear a positive offering once in a while, and finding fault is all too easy.

    And as it turns out I have no problems with Dawn Johnsen.  So make that four people today I think would be far better than EH.  That after all is the question, and not whether a potential has any flaws or has an annoying speech pattern or once ran a terrible political campaign.


    I was very interested in your opinion on KKT (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:02:08 AM EST
    since you are a local. Thanks- her speaking style does not bother me, but if she is generally not considered top notch, that does matter.

    I had forgotten Dawn Johnson, sorry to say. I would be happy with that choice.


    Well I don't think it's been (3.50 / 2) (#74)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:49:23 AM EST
    shown that KKT isn't top notch.  Even Anne concedes it's just her impression based in part -- but she says not a great part -- on her speaking style.  At the same time she thought it was important enough a factor to include a link to an interview demonstrating Kathleen's somewhat halting speech which apparently really bothered Anne as it also seemed to her to offer proof on the intelligence issue.

    Confusing.  The interview portion I viewed actually showed a woman with a good grasp of the issues who was expressing a liberal Dem's perspective on women's reproductive rights vs the repressive attitudes of the male leaders of her church and the GOP. And trying to choose her words carefully as I saw it.

    Possibly right there an indication that her head and heart are in the right place, and evidence for those skeptics above that she just might be an actual liberal, like virtually all the Kennedys.

    But if there is evidence in the portion I didn't see either of KKT not being quite "top notch" enough for a few of you, or evidence even that she isn't a true liberal, please point me to that part of the tape for evaluation.


    Please stop mischaracterizing what (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:43:41 AM EST
    I've stated about KKT; this is the second or third time you have chosen to ignore what I think most people would see as clear explanations of my assessment of her.

    Not least is that I stated - and I have added some bold in hope that you may finally see what was always there - the following:

    The interview was offered to provide an example of Townsend's speaking style, which I had criticized in my comment; it was not meant to be the be-all, end-all with which to render an opinion of her intelligence or ability.

    And yet...here you are, once again trying to represent the clip as if I had offered it as evidence of her intelligence and where she falls on the political spectrum.

    And once again, you have chosen to ignore that I - and Zorba - lived in the state KKT served as lieutenant governor for eight years, as if that's irrelevant.  

    The thing is that I don't have to prove anything to you, brodie.  I live in MD, I followed/follow Democratic politics, I'm entitled to make my own assessment of how a two-term lieutenant governor managed to squander a double-digit lead early in the campaign, choose a former Republican no one had ever heard of as her running mate, and lose to the Republican candidate who chose Michael Steele as his running mate.  Yes, that Michael Steele.

    But, please, don't let anyone's experience get in the way of having your pronouncement of her as an "excellent" possibility for AG - based on little more than her name - be accepted as more valuable.

    I have no idea why you have made it your mission to trivialize and dismiss everything I've said about KKT, but the lesson I've learned in direct dialogue with you is that you are not an honest debater.  I should thank you for that lesson, as it will allow me to avoid any one-on-one with you in the future, and ignore altogether your dialogue with others.


    Final comment from here (2.75 / 4) (#82)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:38:35 AM EST
    The only thing that's been established in all these posts is that KKT was not a top notch politician as she ran for gov-- a fact I stipulated to early on.

    But if I seemed to you to trivialize and dismiss your opinion of her it was because you seemed to offer nothing but trivial and irrelevant evidence -- the somewhat halting speech in one interview -- that was worthy of being dismissed, and not much else.  I twice asked for examples from your own link showing evidence of lack of intelligence or liberalness and twice I got no showing from you nor even an acknowledgement that you could apparently find none.  

    Your only substantive complaint that can be proved is the matter you keep repeating -- as if by repeating it you could
    shore up the weaknesses in your main argument -- but which I already conceded, namely her terrible campaign for gov.  

    But that doesn't prove lack of intelligence as its being used here, but only perhaps a lack of natural political ability.  Something which would be helpful but is not essential to the job of AG.


    Are you related to KKT? (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 12:37:18 PM EST
    Are you a close personal friend? Because the way you have relentlessly gone after Anne on this seems out of scale for the discussion. You seem to be extremeley defensive about the fact that others -- who live in Maryland -- haven't been impresed with KKT. Almost as if you are taking it personally. You're coming off like an unhinged bully.

    KKT: excellent idea (none / 0) (#23)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:20:41 PM EST
    on the substance and the family symmetry (RFK being the best AG ever in my book).

    Another possibility:  Kamala Harris, current AG of CA.


    I agree that Rice is out... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jim in St Louis on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    2nd terms are a general time to re-shift, I doubt HRC will leave- she has been surprisingly competent at State. (Bnghz excepted)
     Kinda like to see Geither go- taxes are important.
    Chu has been so academic and so little real world.
    Holder is doomed- F&F is going to dog him and he does not have a decent defense, or he would have used it prior to the election. House Rs will keep up on this as they don't have anything else right now.
    Big Sis Janet- please run for office somewhere, Homeland security is kind of a joke but the ha ha part of the joke is Big Sis. Total lack of credibility after the panty bomber.  
    Everyone else is OK by me, but its also traditional to bring in someone from the opposite party, so maybe a moderate Republican at Treasury would help with the whole bi-partisan thing.  

    Hillary/Castro in 2016 (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:03:59 PM EST
    Hillary will take a two year hiatus to read, reflect, write a book.

    Then in 2014 she will start to run.

    Susan Rice is the favored pick for Secretary of State.


    My call for next SecDef (none / 0) (#22)
    by AlkalineDave on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:14:23 PM EST
    Not saying Panetta is leaving soon, but when he does, Michèle A. Flournoy will be the next SecDef. Needed this written down for "I told you sos".

    I did hear this afternoon on some radio station (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:40:45 PM EST
    (forget which) that Panetta IS leaving soon. I was surprised as I had not heard that.

    Kerry (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:02:22 PM EST
    is going to be SoS and would have been already if Hillary had not wanted it. As far as the others, I'm not sure.

    Why are we asking (none / 0) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 05:56:38 PM EST
    if Holder is willing to accept a second term?

    Doesn't the President have to ask him first?

    It sounds as if Obama gave him (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:05:18 PM EST
    the option.  Janet Reno served all eight years of the Clinton adminsitration.

    Maybe but there's a way (none / 0) (#46)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:20:29 PM EST
    of signalling whether or not you're enthusiastic about his returning, even with a technical renewal of his contract. I would much prefer a more aggressive AG.

    As for Reno, my recollection is that Bill wanted to replace her but got word she wanted to stay, and by then, with Rs calling for all their bogus investigations of so many in the admin, she was in a position where Clinton couldn't afford to tick her off.


    Didn't Reno (none / 0) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:05:40 PM EST
    give Starr permission to expand his Paula Jones investigation to include Lewinsky?

    I don't know what the pressures were on her to accede to Starr's request, but it seemed to me that she caved pretty easily.

    I rather doubt a Republican A.G. would let the hounds loose on a Republican President so quickly.


    Well, my understanding is, (none / 0) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:48:52 PM EST
    and I'm certainly no student of this protocol, that all Presidential appointees basically tender their resignations, whether de facto, or de jure, at the end of a full 4 year term. He can then ask them to remain for another term....or not. He, then doesn't have to deal with all the emotional business of having to formally terminate those he doesn't want to remain. It makes good sense to me.

    Of course, it's not that simple, and many (most) appointees are privy to how the Chief regards them. But, it just makes a transition that much smoother, and hopefully, less rancorous.

    But, my point was that, regardless of Holder's "inside information," I hadn't heard Obama publicly announce his desire for him to remain.

    And, yes, Janet Reno served all eight years, as did many others in Clinton's term, and all other President's terms.


    Do AG's have fixed terms? (none / 0) (#48)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:36:43 PM EST
    Don't Cabinet, regardless of needing Senate confirmation, serve at the pleasure of The President?

    In other words, just like SC justices, they only have to get past the Senate once for any one job, but unlike the SC, the Prez can kick 'em to the curb anytime they want to.

    (Although first having a replacement standing by that can get past the Senate quickly is probably a good idea)


    Definitely John Kerry for anything... (none / 0) (#40)
    by masslib on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    We could finally replace him with a more potent Democrat in Massachusetts.  

    I don't know about cabinet appointments, but I would love to see Deval Patrick chosen as next supreme court justice.

    Please, no more appointments for sitting Senators (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by DFLer on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:04:43 PM EST
    or Dem Govs.

    It isn't worth the risk of losing the seat.


    Brown could run for Kerry's (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:05:51 PM EST

    And he'd lose again. (none / 0) (#44)
    by masslib on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    I tend to agree, at least from my (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:36:14 PM EST
    perch a continent away.

    A sitting senator, once considered a rising star, loses by 8 points to a political neophyte.

    As I see it he not only lost, but by a fair margin, and conducted his campaign in a way that seriously diminished the luster.

    If he runs again against Kerry's replacement, I like Dems' chances of beating him again with a halfway decent candidate who is willing to fight.  

    Right now the experts seem to think Kerry will be nominated for State, not Rice.


    So...I guess sometimes it (3.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 09:47:40 PM EST
    does matter what kind of campaign someone runs, eh?  Even when they do so from an alleged position of strength.

    Of course it matters, espec as (none / 0) (#67)
    by brodie on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 10:01:22 PM EST
    we're talking about the same type of political contest for the same office before the same voters.

    A campaign to win confirmation for a cabinet post from the senate is a different beast.


    Joe Kennedy III for senator? (none / 0) (#51)
    by caseyOR on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:46:41 PM EST
    On Tuesday night, in the middle of punching up numbers on his iPad, Chuck Todd started salivating at the idea that if Kerry goes to State, the just elected Joe K III could run for Kerry's seat and win.

    Nothing against Joe K III, by all accounts he is a good guy, but Todd is insane. Th idea that young Joe would, just by merit of his name, be a contender for that seat is astounding to me. The kid hasn't even be assigned  congressional office space yet.

    Plus, aren't there a number of MA Dems who got pushed out of the way by Liz Warren's campaign and who might still see themselves in higher office?

    CST, as our resident Bay Stater, please weigh in here.


    That's funny actually... (none / 0) (#52)
    by masslib on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:53:06 PM EST
    I thought about Joe myself.  Nothing is impossible in politics.  Obama went from the state leg to the Senate so I think it could happen.  Actually, Joe is my congressman.  I wouldn't mind him at all as a Senator.  He's quite liberal.  I thought Deval Patrick may run for it himself though, as well.

    Joe's my congressman too. (none / 0) (#56)
    by dk on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:26:50 PM EST
    It's been hard (for me, anyway) to figure out if he's liberal or not.  He crowded out the rest of the potential field so quickly (for obvious reasons) he never really had to debate on the issues very much.  

    That said, he appears very earnest, and at least had the humility to attend all the various pot luck dinners, hand-shaking appearances at bus/subway stops, etc. that one does when trying to run a grass-roots campaign.  I guess we'll see.  Fingers crossed!  Probaby best that he builds up a bit of a

    I would think that Deval pretty much has his choice of (1) Kerry's senate seat; (2) Supreme Court or (3) Cabinet Position (AG, probably).  I don't know which he wants.  I'm ok with him in any of those positions, though.  


    Oops. In my second paragraph (none / 0) (#58)
    by dk on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:30:02 PM EST
    I had started to write that maybe it would be best for Joe to prove himself in the House for a little while before moving over to the Senate.  But then I started thinking, well, if he comes out swinging in the House, a quick move to the Senate may not be so bad.  I guess we'll find out soon.

    Capuano will probably run again (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:59:11 PM EST
    He's the first person I thought of.  Joe K seems young, might want to work his way up.   Then again with a senate seat you could wait a very long time, so you never know.  Deval is certainly a possibility if he wants it.  I kind of get the sense he's going somewhere.  I think there could be quite a few candidates. I'm sure Scott Brown would run again.  It's possible he could win, depending on who runs.  Deval Patrick is the only one I consider a shoe-in.  Although I would kind of like to see him stay as gov.

    Hillary (none / 0) (#81)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    Clinton ran for Senator of New York having never been elected to anything at all.

    And, she was elected even though everybody knew she was using it as a stepping stone for a presidential run. Of course it helped that she was running against a man who seemed to be quite dumb, and had the further impediment of being easy to dislike.

    It's really exhausting.

    So, Joe 3? Why not?


    Of course Joe K III could (none / 0) (#89)
    by caseyOR on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 02:52:11 PM EST
    immediately jump to the race for the Senate should Kerry's seat open up.

    My point was simply that I found it interesting, odd, whatever that Chuck Todd's mind immediately went to a kid who had just been pronounced the winner in his first election run. It seemed to me that Todd was only considering this because of Joe's last name.

    About Hillary, she did not leap to a run for higher office within a few minutes, days, weeks of winning her first elective office. That is what Joe would do if he chose to run for an as-yet-not-open Kerry seat.

    My comment really had more to do with Chuck Todd and the slobbering press than it did with Joe, who by all accounts is a good guy.


    Totally (none / 0) (#91)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 05:16:09 AM EST
    agree about the slobbering press - always seeking to anoint someone as a new star upon whom they can lavish their attention.

    I lost (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 05:25:47 AM EST
    any vestige of respect for Kerry after watching his timid and tepid campaign in 2004 against the most corrupt, evil and defeatable incumbents in history.

    He should be the ambassador to some island republic where he could retire to a life of drinks with umbrellas and hamburgers with lots of Heinz ketchup.


    So will Biden... (none / 0) (#50)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 06:37:24 PM EST
    EVER get to be Sec. of State?

    Maybe a SOS - VP job swap? (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:03:57 AM EST
    Can (none / 0) (#93)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 05:20:42 AM EST
    you really see Hillary sitting behind Obama at the State of the Union having to make those faces and clap at the designated moments?

    Why (none / 0) (#92)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 05:18:30 AM EST
    would you want Biden, the gaffemeister, to be SOS?

    The only reason I could come up with is that it would be a way to get him out of the country as much as possible.