Kerry is the No Drama Option for Secretary of State

The defined progressive leadership hasn't been seen much in the talk around the Obama candidacy - people like Feingold, Kucinich, etc. There were the couple of folks in the economic team - Bonior (sp?) - but no-one who strays too far left from the center.

Obama's campaign team was built on a core of old Daschle and Gephardt staffers; the midwestern center-left. While Barack doesn't 'transcend' race, he does mess with the old left/right divide in the Democratic party. Rahm Emanuel, for instance; you and Juan Cole and some hysterical right-wingers have convinced me he's not the worst choice.

But I remember with Clinton - Treasury, Commerce, and one more financial job went bam bam bam to conservative corporate 'Democrats' so I've had the 'conservatives appointed,scales falling from my eyes' moments.

Are you expecting any high-profile progressive appointments? Do you think that Obama feels that he has to reward that part of his base with something? I'm hunting for progressives in his administration.

Here.

Al,

Your thoughts about Kerry being selected for Secretary of State are interesting in that IMHO, it ISN"T an interesting choice.  My first and subsequent thoughts on it are boring and boring.  He's a white male Senator from the East Coast who spends most of his time giving equivocating answers to everything. Fair or not, to much of the world and the U.S. he represents the impression of the "spineless Democrat".  The "for the war before he was against it" statement precedes him into every meeting.  Heck, just because she shows more spine, I would suggest Sen. Clinton before Kerry.  I didn't really see your argument against a more talked about candidate, Gov. Richardson and I think for his known success at diplomacy and his personal style being less partisan than Kerry's, I still see him as a preferred candidate for this cabinet position.

Al,

I think you're off base on this one for a couple reasons:

1. Dick Lugar has said he's not interested. Plus, keeping him in the Senate ensures a cooperative Republican Base in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

2. If Kerry is promoted, Feingold is next in line, Dodd has already announced that he's staying in Banking. My impression is that Feingold is more liberal/progressive than Kerry, and I don't think the White House wants too much pressure from the left as they seek to correct all the screw ups of the last 8 years in Foreign Policy. Also, with Ted Kennedy's Health, it makes sense to keep Kerry in the Senate, despite his lobbying, to represent Massachusetts with Seniority in the Senate in case Teddy can't continue to work.  Finally, My gut says Kerry isn't the guy, and doesn't project strength to the world in the way Obama wishes to project it right off the bat.

3. There are many places for Richardson, as you've noted. I think he's more likely to be in Energy, which will be a MAJOR post in the Obama administration.

4. I think you are wrong about Holbrooke. The guy is a career diplomat that has worked and knows people all over the world. He is obviously a tough negotiator, probably too pragmatic for the Left. But he has never been given the chance to formulate underlying policy.  Biden is a very big fan of his, and once said he thought Holbrooke was the best qualified to be the next SOS at a Council of Foreign Relations seminar.  Holbrooke's big problem seems to be losing the political infighting game in Washington, he has handled the jobs he's been presented overseas.  Furthermore, he's young enough (still in his 60's) to go nuts with all the traveling.

Finally off topic, but not really, my guess is that Obama will ask Gates to stay on for at least a half a year to a year. The combined message of Holbrooke and Gates appointments, with Biden, Lugar, and Kerry backing them up, will create a very smooth functioning Foreign Policy hierarchy from the start. This will free up Obama to focus on domestic policy without leaving himself vulnerable to overseas developments.

Sorry,

I forgot to sign the last post touting Holbrooke.

Ken in California

Do you really think he'd be so hesitant to relinquish his Banking Committee chairmanship? Surely you, Al, are familiar with his efforts against counterrevolutionaries in Central America. I think for that reason alone he'd be a fantastic chairman for Foreign Relations - I feel that the El Salvadoran government at least would be quaking in their jackboots. And from what I can see, he cares enough about Central America that he would want a post where he can do more about it. But I'll happily hear your perspective if you disagree, since I'm sure this is an area that you are far more familiar with than I.

This stands in distinction to most of the stuff I've seen speculating of Cabinet choices. I think a valuable footnote that occurred to me a whole back would be Richardson for Homeland Security. If you agree, I would like to see a similar piece advancing the case for Richardson.

Al...Kerry comes to my mind, too...but agreeing with up thread, so does BOR-ING! There's no drama, and there's yawn...

Political considerations aside, I just don't see Kerry with world leaders. He wasn't even that good as a surrogate for Barack during the campaign.  Maybe I'm missing something...although he did give O the chance for the 2004 speech...

Richardson for Energy would be OK...I'd love for him to have high visibility...but I did/do not like his mouth watering for my Great Lakes water...which is what he wants as Gov of a desert state...(BTW: he is so cute...I know, I know...)

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Funny that boring is being seen as such a bad thing... I kind of equate it with GTD (getting things done) in this context (much like Biden). My God the last thing we need is more excitement in this arena. I'd think you'd want a strong public servant and ally to get work done.

As for Kerry, I should confess that I don't know the man at all, but my wife participated in a policy conference thing he was at at the Miliken Foundation / Institute (maybe late 2007) and she was blown away over his presence and verbal command when speaking in that context. She swore up and down that he was amazing in a venue where it was OK to be intelligent and discuss the nuance of policy.

Being a surrogate to the television media and being a Secretary of State seem like really different jobs to me. Being a TV surrogate involves responding to idiots asking irrelevant questions by giving a quippy comeback and then pivoting to your talking point of the day. Kerry seems like more of a statesman, IMHO.

I'd add that he's already publicly rejected the position.  http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20081107/NEWS02/811070469

with a guy who voted to go into war solely on the basis of political expediency.  If I knew that what the administration was peddling about WMD was bullshit, so did John Kerry.  But he voted for the AUMF because he felt he couldn't become president otherwise.  That's not change, that's more of the same.

It continues to amaze me how wrong people are about Kerry, especially people who consider themselves liberals.  Really.  Al's got a long history with Kerry, and has a genuine understanding of who the man is and what his capabilities are.

I think Al's analysis of why Kerry would be an excellent choice is spot on.  Anyone follow Kerry's diplomatic meetings with foreign heads of state in 2006?  The man has gravitas, and is a true grownup.  He is already highly respected overseas.

As a constituent I have mixed feelings at the prospect of losing him as my senator, especially considering Ted Kennedy's illness, but whatever he chooses to do, Obama would gain - a lot - by having Kerry as either SOS or chairman of SFRC.

Kurt,

I agree with your comments competely.  I would not think this should be a position where witty or exciting are high on the list of requirements for the best person for the position.  Obama has shown time and again that he's all about the right person for the job, not the right person according to popular opinion.  When the Biden pick was first announced, I wasn't doing cartwheels because it didn't seem to jive with the "change" motif.  However, Joe proved to be just what the ticket needed to round itself out.  The right man for the job.  I'll take boring and wonkish in this slot, thank you very much.

To me, the most important signal Obama can or will send is who he puts at Treasury.

Kerry at State, shrug.

He is a hard pill to swallow considering his stance on the AUMF and then in 2004 after it was clear that Bush lied he said he would still vote the same way.  That immediately underminds him as a credible person.

Am I crazy to wish Susan Rice would get this position?  Is she not considered 'seasoned' enough?

The other Obama advisor I admire is Samantha Power.  I wonder where she may fit into foreign policy/State Dept.

is another person's "no drama". I find it amusing that Al wrote a post about how Kerry will be the "no drama" option and people are complaining that Kerry is "boring". That's just two ways of saying the same thing, folks!

I've been expecting for awhile that Kerry would be Obama's choice for Secretary of State, and I find Al's argument compelling.

On both counts. I think the Summers appointment would annoy me some, should it come to pass, and possibly use one of the 10,000 or so get out of jail free cards Obama has. I'm also really jazzed about Power being involved somehow... just seems like a fundamental reframing of our policy. And everyone says she's wicked smart.

I understand the annoyance about Kerry's vote... I lived in Boston 2001-2003 and it really pissed me off that he got played as he did on Iraq... but I think he paid his pennance in 2004 during the election on that one. I'll also say that Al's relationship with Kerry carries a lot of weight with me personally fwiw.

I am sure Al and others from MA know Kerry much better than I do.  But there is something to be said for first impressions that people have who are not as familiar with Kerry.  Heads of state and others meeting Kerry will also be influenced on first impressions of him and how he presents himself is critical to this role of "Negotiator in Chief" for the U.S. 

I listened to him all thru the 2004 election and watched him a few times on C-Span as he campaigned for Obama this Fall and I see a big difference between a no drama Obama and someone putting you to sleep during his speech. 

audiored mentioned Susan Rice and Samantha Power.  Those are two names I haven't heard recently and I would think would be great to be added to the list of considerations. 

have you noticed from the session with all of Obama's key campaign people on huffington post just after he got elected, Obama's motto seems to be, no drama.

and as a foreigner, I also would like no drama. I don't know much about Kerry, but if he is qualified, intelligent and all that people say, he seems to fit the needs, especially on the front of no drama

did you not see Kerry's speech at the national convention - that was pretty fiery.

I disagree that around the world he is thought of as a boring typical spineless Democrat (Irish citizen speaking here) - that is more of a "faux-news" type characterization.:)  I think outsiders, Europeans anyway, would value his thoughtful, deliberate style, rather than, for example, the blustery Madeline Albright - whose dogmatic imperialistic-type pronouncements were not appreciated.

KD

regarding the stepping down of Howard Dean and would it be possible for David Plouffe to take his place.  Can you imagine?

2010 would rock.

KD

Somewhere aren't we going to hit a point where we've weakened the senate a bit too much?  I worry about the leadership drain if he staffs the administration off the Hill.

Also any chance that Prof. Power will be brought back from the wilderness?

I am a 66 year old white woman and this is how I feel about the SOS. I really really feel, that this is a job for a man and Kerry would be great. I have heard him on policy and other items and really appreciate his nuance. If we have to deal with the middle east, I feel they don't have much respect for women. So the negotiating would be that much more difficult. Just my tought.

Good piece, Al, and I think you are dead on about the merits (and likelihood) of Kerry going to State.

One thing that caught my eye in this piece was your description of Rand Beers as a "hack". I don't know enough about Beers to have a strong personal opinion, but I do have great respect for one of his long-time colleagues and friends, Richard Clarke. By the transitive property of respect, I've always figured Beers was a good guy, too.

What's your beef with Beers?

--Ken

Ken -

Some things to read...

Affidavit by Rand Beers admitting to Purjury in Dyncorp-Ecuador Case.

and...

Beers Fumigated in Deposition

and...

Deposition of Randy Beers

(If you need more after that, just ring!)

- Al

An honest to god policy wonk, non drama queen, thoughtful adult in a position to affect our standing and policy around the world.

Sounds good to me. I sincerely like and admire the man, always have.

He figured out all that crap about Iran/Contra/IBC bank and never got the kudos I thought he deserved for that.

I don't like the idea of including Lugar in the administration.  Let's not reward Republicans.  If he wants to be on the team, let him change his party registration.

my initial reaction to kerry for sos was "huh?"  but the advantages al and others point to cause me to think he would be a good pick.  who would replace him as senator?

i live in massachusetts and i can't think of any state dem pols that i'd care to see in his senate seat.  anyone got any insight on this?

@Karen Marie..My point exactly.  Caution is needed, replacing strong leaders that are difficult for the GOP to challenge is asking for trouble.  Mass is a blue state that has had a lot of GOP Govs and strong congressional challengers.

Karen Marie - Who might succeed Kerry in the Senate? A bunch of possible aspirants come to mind: Gov. Deval Patrick, US Reps Markey, Delahunt, Capuano, Olver (I doubt Barney Frank will want to leave his awesomely rising star in the House), and some folks named "Kennedy" too.

The most interesting would be if she would change her voting residence from Pittsburgh and perhaps her party registration: Teresa Heinz.

I'm sure there are others I haven't considered.

Meanwhile, there's not a single Republican in the state's House delegation, Bill Weld is a resident of New York, there doesn't seem to be much a  GOP bullpen at all to contest it.

If say Frank or Capuano won a special Senate election to replace Kerry, would there then be another special election to replace his House seat or is that appointment?  Anyone?