Rice under fire from left as Kerry's name won't go away

[Playinghardball]

One of the most controversial energy projects in the nation also has become a flash point in the drama surrounding who may become the next secretary of state – and it’s coming from the left instead of the right.

Back on Nov. 28, “OnEarth,” published by the Natural Resources Defense Council, dug into U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s financial disclosures and found that she and her husband have a stake in TransCanada, the company pushing for the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built.

NRDC officials say it's an important issue that must be discussed during the nomination process. But the timing of the report raises questions, as it is being surfaced by an environmental activist community that has previously given support to another potential secretary of state candidate – Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

The decision on whether to approve the pipeline goes through the State Department.

“If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project,” Scott Dodd at “OnEarth” wrote. “Rice's financial holdings could raise questions about her status as a neutral decision maker.”

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/08/15763366-rice-under-fire-from-left-as-kerrys-name-wont-go-away?lite

[dkf]

1. If John Kerry has no exposure to oil or the pipeline I will be flabbergasted.

This is a ridiculous reason to oppose Rice. A better reason is she will probably be more interventionist than Kerry.

[JI7]

3. what helps KErry is he actually has a senate record and he has been good

on the environment .

Rice might have the same positions and should be allowed to give her views on these issues. i'm sure they would come up if she is picked during the hearings.

[dkf]

9. It's already on the record that Rice is more interventionist than Kerry.

[JI7]

13. i'm talking about the environmental issues in the OP

[democrattotheend]

51. His money is in a true blind trust

Unlike Romney, who claimed it was but it wasn't really.

And he has a strong environmental record in the Senate.

I am not even sure if I oppose the pipeline (I'm a labor person, and a lot of unions support it) but I think Kerry would probably be less likely to approve it than Rice. Although isn't it really the president's decision?

[bluestate10]

53. Can you say that Rice not have her money in a blind trust? The woman has $23-45 million. nt

[democrattotheend]

58. I don't know what her financial situation is

I don't know if she has a blind trust or not. I just know that Kerry does because it came up in 2004.

[bluestate10]

83. She is massively wealthy, $23-45 million net. It is hard to know exactly everything a person

owns when that much money is involved. I might own shares in TransCanada in my retirement money, I just don't know because I don't manage that part of my assets and when I do look into it, I focus on allocations and objectives instead of actual stocks held. I don't want to get involved any deeper, my interests are the business things that I do daily and future plans that I work on. I can totally understand how Susan Rice would not know what she owns in regards to a specific stock or group of stocks, more than likely she doesn't wake up each day giving a shit about what stocks she wons, her interests are elsewhere.

[karynnj]

95. From previous statements by his office, the stocks listed on Senate disclosures

are all actually in the professionally managed trust funds that he and Teresa are beneficiaries of. Teresa's are the Heinz family's and she is one of many beneficiaries and not a trustee. Kerry is a beneficiary of the Forbes and Winthrop trusts since his mom died. Kerry has stated that he has no input to any of the trusts on stocks.

Kerry has the strongest environmental record in the Senate.

[samsingh]

2. and if the repugs win his senate seat, once again we are screwed

in fact, should we start a countdown on how long it will take the Democrats to give the advantage back to the repugs?

This is the time for bold progressive action in weed legalization, strengthening Senate control for the next generation, and (pardon me for yelling) ENSURING THAT ELECTIONS ARE FAIR IN ALL 50 STATES.

[bluestate10]

54. The purist don't give a fuck about that. Honestly, they are worst than teabaggers some time. nt

[graham4anything]

4. if people proporting to be JK's friends are doing this, aren't they now swiftboating someone?

I am sure Sen. Kerry himself has nothing to do with this, but it reeks of opportunitism on this groups part

[JI7]

5. really, you compare this to swift boating ?

you are really showing yourself

[ProSense]

6. What a disgusting right wingish comment.

Typical from a Hillary fanatic.

[dsc]

7. He apparently owns the same stock she does

so yeah, if he has people spreading this it is pretty damn hypocritical.

[JI7]

8. he also has a senate record with votes on these issues

and it's not his people spreading it, it's a group that is openly supporting him for SOS.

[graham4anything]

11. that seems to be one and the same, isn't it? That is disgusting.

I don't believe for a second he himself would want to do that, or knows anything about.
But his fans/people/superpacs/whatever you want to call it, doing it is grossly swiftboatmatic.

Besides, why do they want his seat to go to Scott Brown?

I figure he himself has nothing to do with any of this, but it's time for him to issue the Sherman.

If he wants the SOS, then ask Hillary45 in 2016 to appoint him, but why cede his senate leadership seniority position to a republican? Or at least wait until 2015.

after all, it has only been a couple of years since he became senior senator.

The left attacking Susan Rice is indeed swiftboating and silly, being that she will be named at the appropriate time.

(like when the position actually becomes open.)

[JI7]

14. they have no right to question the investments and how it might relate to her decisions as SOS ?

[graham4anything]

16. politics as usual games against the president.

and i don't see any conflict on Ms. Rice's part anyhow with that. Seems so petty and that is just what the voters have said they do not want to see happen to President Obama in his second term.

this is politics as usual against the president, a cheap and tawdry game.

[dsc]

21. not if they are supporting someone who also owns the stock

I have no problem with favoring him over her or vice versa but people should be consistent.

[JI7]

27. but they have answers to the other person through their record in the senate

and the votes.

[jeff47]

25. Only if she was actually SoS and had not divested and was making the decision.

If the concern is her holdings would influence her decision, that's an utterly trivial problem to solve.

Either sell the stock when she becomes SoS, or recuse herself from the decision.

[JI7]

28. what if her decision would not be favorable to her investments ?

[jeff47]

31. Did you read my post at all?

I guess I'll just quote myself

Either sell the stock when she becomes SoS, or recuse herself from the decision.

[JI7]

34. but what if she doesn't sell and makes her decision would not be favorable

to her investments, should she recuse herself then ?

[jeff47]

45. :facepalm:

You're pretty darn desperate to gin up a controversy here.

[blm]

52. That you see NRDC as a fan group or political super pac shows you will say anything, no matter what

in your efforts to target Kerry, usually with RW smears that you apparently believed and find useful in your attempts to gin up division here at DU.

[graham4anything]

72. My angle is not wanting a republican Scott Brown to reclaim a seat -he would win

the rest is irrelevant and a distraction from that.

in response to your remark to me I could say
Why one would to give the seat to Scott Brown? Is Scott Brown a better person to be in the senate than John Kerry?

I would not think so myself.
As I don't wish John Kerry's seat to open to give Scotty the chance.

Which it would
100% fact is the seat would give Brown the chance.

Why risk it?

John Kerry should issue the Sherman and get this off the table.
The only ones wanting him to leave his seat is John MCcain and the republicans and his personal fans who are doing a disservice not being able to guarantee the seat remains democratic.

IF the rules in Mass. were different (and they were changed SPECIFICALLY FOR JOHN KERRY) in 2004 to make them what they are today-then it would be different.
IF the gov. could just appoint a replacement til 2014, it would be different.
BUT a special election would lead to an opening for Scott Brown and the dems do NOT do well in special elections, especially after 3 of them recently.Dems are tired.

repubs wuold be reanimated, and the change would lead to a national MSM movement for the rebubs.

Why would one want that???

[blm]

74. Baloney - your 'concern' is BS. GOP hawks WANT Rice and are jerking Dems around as usual.

And it's a pretty safe bet that you know it.

[graham4anything]

77. No, I LIKE Susan Rice. I don't vote against someone, I vote FOR them.

It is why President Obama won in 2008 and 2012
and Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996.
and FDR won 4 times.

People voted FOR them
they were not voting against anyone, but FOR them.

I like Susan Rice and she has done a great job

The repubs don't operate on CTs. They see straight lines
McCain is avenging Obama and Rice on PERSONAL issues and to get the seat.

Nothing more, nothing devious.

(same as Bush41 hated Dan Rather and Bush43 got him fired)
the repubs carry personal grudges like the Mafia does. A slight never goes unpunished even if it takes a decade to achieve.

The better analogy is
Rice needs to be confirmed the same way
Al Gore should have been allowed to avenge 2000, in 2004

[blm]

80. Not buying what you're trying to sell.

Your posts are so disconnected that it's apparent you reach for anything in hopes that it will be bought.

[graham4anything]

82. one needs to read and absorb, but I am not trying to change your mind.

again, I write for the dear reader reading in.

a person with a viewpoint or an article with a viewpoint won't have their view changed.
But someone reading in who is undecided could.

[blm]

84. Some of us know EXACTLY what you're doing.

.

[karynnj]

99. Becoming a senior Senator meant very little

He was already the chair of first the Small Business Committee and then the SFRC. A Senators seniority is versus the entire Senate (or their party). Kerry and Rockefeller were chairs of two of the most important committees in 2009 before Byrd and Kennedy dies. They had far more power in 2009 than many senior Senators in states where the seats changed hands more often. For instances, if JK does become SOS, Warren will become a senior Senator. However, she will still be a freshman and will chair no full committees.

In addition, I doubt you had a problem when the junior Senator from NY became SOS before she became a senior senator or the party's nominee.

Kerry has been in the Senate since 1985 - meaning he is among the 10 most senior. In addition, he is widely respected on both sides in the Senate.

[graham4anything]

104. the line of succession in NY is great. In Mass. BECAUSE SOLELY OF KERRY-it now sucks biggie!

it wouldn't matter IF a democratic person took his place

but the thingymcdingy is- a republican will replace him.

nothing else in this entire thread matters but this, it is all yada yada nothing

Solomon himself would not matter.

It is that Scott Brown is senator in waiting and there is no ands/or/if/buts about it

BECAUSE 100% of 2004 and Kerry. They went political and changed solely because of him
But the thingy is, in 2004 he forgot to be admitted into the White House and the rule change was meaningless.

but it remained on the books and that is the one and only important thing in 2012.

Besides, Susan Rice is the one who is getting it, no matter who is pushing this.

In fact, anything the farleft complains about will just mean the repubs will indeed vote her in after a little yammering.
It's not like the right wants to agree with the far left.

[ProSense]

15. Kerry doesn't own stock

He reports his wife's assets, which do not belong to him.

People spend too much time spreading bullshit information.

[politicasista]

17. Thanks for sticking up for the Senator

and others too.

[dsc]

18. MA is a community property state

so yes, he does own that stock (or at least half of the increase in its value since the marriage).

[ProSense]

20. I don't give a shit! n/t

[dsc]

23. sorry you don't find facts to your liking

[ProSense]

24. Here's a fact

while you're spinning your little anti-Kerry rants: Teresa's assets (a trust) are in PA.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[dsc]

32. I don't have a problem with either one owning the stock

and/or being SOS. But we can't decry blind trusts in regards to Romney but say they are sacred in regards to Kerry. And just how blind is the trust if we both know she owns the stock? And you can't seriously believe that where the investment is, matters. They are married in MA and MA law would prevail about divorce. I will admit, that I am mistaken about MA being a community property state but not mistaken about the fact that the gains on the stock would be property of the marriage. In short, he does own stock in that company just like she does.

[ProSense]

44. Quit the

"But we can't decry blind trusts in regards to Romney but say they are sacred in regards to Kerry."

...the false equivalency bullshit. Learn the facts and stop spreading nonsense.

[dsc]

46. yes blind trusts are an equal opportunity scam

again, if you and I know the Senator's wife is invested in the company then so does he. Frankly I would prefer that we have a complete list of assets coupled with recusing of the party in situations where the person owns greater than a certain amount of stock and/or has the potential of earning a certain amount from a given decision. I think that makes sense regardless of the party of the decision maker in question.

[ProSense]

47. And your point is still nonsense. n/t

[karynnj]

100. The difference is that they are not blind trusts set up by Kerry

They are TRUSTS that were set up long ago. The Heinz Family trust is NOT just Teresa's and her sons, but several other Heinz relatives. Kerry is a beneficiary of the Winthrop and Forbes trusts - along with a large number of other people. The reason that we know what stocks are owned by the Heinz trusts is that in 2004, at Teresa's request, they were made public because the media and Republicans demanded that.

You forget that there was a prenup and they keep their assets seperate.

[blm]

49. JK and Teresa took legal steps to keep their finances separate from day one.

A truth that corpmedia and consistent Kerry detractors often overlook or deliberate ignore.

[dsc]

59. unless she isn't planning on leaving him anything

which might be true, I concede, he still has potential benefit even if they took steps to keep hers separate from his. But I will say, I have my doubts that the protests of a female that her husband's assets were separate would be accepted.

[blm]

60. It's completely separate. The Heinz sons and grandchildren are the only beneficiaries.

Kerry's family wealth was passed to him and his siblings after their mother's death.

[karynnj]

97. "His" stocks are owned by trusts that he or Teresa are beneficiaries of but do not control

Teresa's shares of the Heinz family trust come from her late husband and Kerry's are from the Winthrop and Forbes families - and he became a beneficiary when his mother died. Therefore, he never made a decision to buy or sell any of the stocks.

[dsc]

98. the decision to buy isn't the worry

it is the decision on the pipeline and the fact it would increase his net worth.

[karynnj]

103. I think the decision to buy is significant if you are against getting oil from the tar sands

The other thing is that it is unlikely that he knows what the trust has at any point in time - because he does not sell it either. In addition, from the long list of what they own, an one stock is a very small part of their assets.

[karynnj]

101. From all accounts, his people are and have been silent on this because he

does not like this nonsense.

[karynnj]

96. No - these are environmental groups speaking on .... environmental issues

Just as they would if JK was not a possibility. They are NOT doing this to support JK but to raise the issue. Not to mention, it is NOT swiftboating to question a person's position and possible financial conflict 0on an issue key to your group.

It is NOT opportunism for an ENVIRONMENTAL group to lobby for someone (not just JK) good on the environment.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. Secretary Kerry = Senator Brown

No thanks.

[okieinpain]

22. You folks do know that president

Obama is going to approve that pipeline.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. He might- if and when concerns are addressed

however, he's already been on record rejecting it- at great political risk I might add- when the Republicans tried to force his hand on it before. It's not a done deal by any means IMHO.

[frazzled]

26. I'm tired of all of this

Both the demonizing and the sanctification, and the cherrypicking and the false outrage and the convenient forgetfulness ... it all really makes me wanna barf.

The president should be able to pick whomever he wants. (Elections have consequences.) He's being bullied and influenced on this by both the right and the left, and that makes me uncomfortable. Given all this bickering, I think he should pick a third person altogether, to stop the gossip and infighting. Some foreign policy wonk we've never heard of.

Horatio P. Bloozenfoofer or Letitia Finkelbottom would be fine with me if the president thinks he can work with him or her.

[Enrique]

33. so when NBC finally pays attention to this

they do it with an unfounded conspiracy theory: the NRDC isn't really interested in the conflict of interest, they are torpedoing Susan Rice to help their friend John Kerry.

That is a pretty serious charge. Does the NRDC have a history of sliming people like this? Or is NBC just making shit up for whatever reason?

[JI7]

35. it would be boring without the political angle

[Hogfish1]

36. carpmanjohn

Wow. I am new to the site and amazed that you folks haven't mentioned the fact that the Republicans want the Kerry seat for Brown. If Kerry goes they will run Brown. Kerry should stay right where he is. This nonsense of holdings in companies is foolish. She may have a broker handling her portfolio and not know where all her holdings are. She is good for the position.

[hrmjustin]

37. Welcome to DU and I hope you enjoy the site.

[politicasista]

39. Interesting

How the GOP was able to dupe Dems into eating their own.

Maybe people here and and everywhere screaming at Kerry to stay as Senator will finally pay attention to what Kerry does at Senator for once.

[hrmjustin]

40. Well I wanted Kerry but now I want the President to pick a fight and go with Rice.

[blm]

55. Exactly as GOP expected. You really think McCain and Co don't prefer Rice and are cornering Obama

into naming her? Since when do GOP hawks prefer a noninterventionist as SoS instead of a neocon they know they can manipulate?

[libdem4life]

41. Wishful thinking that it took the GOP to do that...the Dems are more than capable. Sad.

[Mass]

66. You posted that before me...

Sad. Why cant people agree it should be Obama's choice, whether it is Rice, Kerry, or somebody else.

[libdem4life]

67. It is his call...that's why it's so frustrating.

[bluestate10]

61. We have debated the issue of Kerry vacating the seat over and over. Some people can't

get it through their fucking heads that the last thing Massachusetts democrats need is another special election, the fourth tough election in 3 years for that group. I agree with you that Kerry should stay in the Senate. Rice is an excellent choice for SOS, but if not her, Diane Feinstein could leave the Senate, California can handle a special election better than Massachusetts can and elect a democrat to the open seat.

[Mass]

65. Diane Feinstein. Who's next, Joe Lieberman.

I guess you are fine with hawks. IMHO, Kerry would be better. I can find even better, but I could go for another election with support from the state and national party if this means a less hawkish SoS.

This said, I am fine with Rice as well, if she is Obama's choice. But at this point, people pretend they want Obama to choose and then start this stupid stories about Brown. Obviously, Bill Weld came back to MA because Scott Brown is unbeatable.

[bluestate10]

68. I think Obama will keep Feinstein on the straight and narrow. Getting her out of the Senate

will surely mean she will be replaced by a Progressive democrat given where California is at.

BTW. Massachusetts may be able to swing a SE. I listened to Ted Kennedy Jr speak a few days ago and was impressed immensely. TKJr has worked in the public arena most of his adult life and appears to be impressive at analyzing questions and giving answers than make sense. A match-up with Jr with Scott Brown would make our job easier if we get tossed into another special election.

[Le Taz Hot]

75. Actually, we've discussed it

at length for weeks now.

Welcome to DU where most issues are discussed here FIRST, weeks before the MSM or any other site gets a clue. Hang on and enjoy the ride.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I see this as a GOP move to cost us a Senate Seat.

Global warming wont be solved by stopping that one pipeline. It is a bigger, tougher nut to crack. And a Republican Senate will guarantee we dont do anything about it.

[blm]

50. More like a GOP dog and pony show to promote Rice the neocon over Kerry the noninterventionist

and they have been backing Obama into a corner over Rice and damning Kerry with praise knowing full well it will move the knejerkers in the Dem party to rally round the neocon Rice.

The GOP hawks know they can manipulate Dem neocons.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Come on. Rice was clearly the Administration's first choice.

I like John Kerry- who, by the way, ALSO voted for the IWR- but I hate to see us lose a Senate seat.

And i don't buy for a Minute that this has been some 15 Dimensional GOP chess. They want Rice to go down so they can prove that they "took her out" because of the Bhengazi "scandal"....

There's no scandal, of course, but they've spent the past 2 months flogging it on FOX and they don't want to look stupid, sitting here with a case of scandalus interruptus and nothing to show for it. If they can remove Rice from SOS consideration, they can point to the "victory" and say "seee? There must have been something there, after all!!"

[blm]

76. Not a chess game - it's a dog and pony show. When have GOP hawks ever come out so vocally

in support of Kerry's non-interventionist foreign policy views? When have GOP hawks EVER preferred a non-interventionist over a neocon?

You think they don't know that by pushing publicly for Kerry that it will annoy the left into siding with the neocon?

The whole "Brown will get Kerry's seat" excuse is laughable. Massachusetts Dems won't fall for Brown's BS again. Dems know how to run against him now, and there are plenty of popular Dem congressmen ready to step up.

[blm]

79. BTW - I don't buy the Rice as first choice scenario. GOP's going out of their way to ACT like she is

and plenty of Dems are jerking their knees in response.

Where have Dems been the last 4 years, anyway? Surely not paying attention to who Obama has been actually dependent on for the most critical diplomatic missions.

"And Pakistanis appreciate Kerry’s humility. Haqqani told me that Kerry is one of the very few senior American officials who doesn’t approach Pakistan like “a viceroy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/magazine/john-kerry-our-man-in-kabul.html?pagewanted=all

[TheKentuckian]

57. Global warming and other damage will be unimpacted by the pipeline?

Not being solved is a bogus, light switch, Republican like argument.

You are making like the options are magically make it all better or fuck it for now, maybe we'll fix it later when you know full well this thing will make matters clearly worse.

No one anywhere has ever argued that killing Keystone will solve global warming, Warren. Your premise is false and the pipeline is not okay, it makes bad worse and you know that unless you are a born again climate change denialist.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. And whether or not Rice becomes SOS isnt going to make or break whether it happens.

The Administration sets the policy. That means the Chief Executive. Not the Secretry of State.

And last time I checked, that was the question being discussed- who should be the next SOS.

But lets map out what you tried to do in that post, shall we? I'm not against Rice for SOS despite her alleged connection to the keystone pipeline and i mentioned, truthfully, that stopping the one pipeline isnt going to solve global warming, in fact it pobably wont stop the Canadian tar sands from being devloped at all ----> well, I must think the pipline is "okay", in fact I must be pro pipeline ----> in fact, im probably some sort of "born again CC Denier"

(Im not, by the way, but thanks)

That is a PRIME example of the sort of lame poo-flinging, masquerading as "political discussion", which is turning people off from DU. Thanks for the example.

[TheKentuckian]

87. So you hold that the pipeline will not have an adverse effect on the climate and environment?

You get poo flung because you make a shit argument by shifting the focus to solving climate change rather than addressing the impacts.

I'm going to keep "flinging poo" at the crappy reasoning. I've never seen a solitary soul claim that nixing the pipeline would solve global climate change, only that the project will make bad worse. Less bad is more good.

You are sitting here arguing that we should make bad worse because an action won't solve the larger problem, and whining about people who want to make such shitty arguments turning away, GOOD.

There are plenty of channels and websites with all the resources they could ever need spouting off silly bullshit for the benefit of some rich folk's pockets.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. That's the other thing people do. They put words in people's mouths so they can have the argument

they want, instead of the one they're actually having.

[TheKentuckian]

93. That is EXACTLY my interpretation of what you are doing

by focusing on killing the pipeline won't solve climate change.

WHO SAID IT WOULD????

[Warren DeMontague]

94. You responded to me, first.

And its worth reiterating that this is about Susan Rice and the SOS nomination, ultimately.

Somehow, now, we're about 4 Kevin Bacons away from the actual issue.

[morningfog]

56. Obama needs to name his pick and support them through the process.

The rest is noise.

[graham4anything]

73. He will name his pick when the appropriate time comes- AFTER INAUGURATION

this is when that happens.

Right now Hillary is doing her soon to be Noble Peace Prized job in the midEast and is the current SOS.

And other important stuff.

The cabinet in the 2nd term will be when the second term starts.

This could all end with a Sherman from Kerry. The time has been long for that to happen.
This would end this diversion instantly.
Sheesh, its only been a couple of years since Kerry became Senior Senator and the status that goes with that. One would think that is a great position of power to have.
I would say it is MORE powerful than SOS, who works for the president, and does what the President says to do.
A senator has independent from the President power.

You tell me which is more important?

[bluestateguy]

63. "Kerry's name won't go away"

Only cuz you guys in the media keep bringing it up.

[Ken Burch]

70. It's silly to see Kerry as the "left" alternative for SoS.

In 2004, his foreign policy positions were almost indistinguishable(if they could be distinguished at all)from those of Bush and Cheney. He was running as the "We Can Do It Better" candidate on Iraq(which was the same thing as promising to just keep the damn war going forever). Kerry also forbid the display of the peace symbol at the 2004 Dem Convention.

You can't do all of that and have any progressive ideas on foreign policy(especially if you also back the globalists on trade issues).

[blm]

81. That shows how inattentive you were back then, Ken, and apparently still inattentive today.

"And Pakistanis appreciate Kerry’s humility. Haqqani told me that Kerry is one of the very few senior American officials who doesn’t approach Pakistan like “a viceroy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/magazine/john-kerry-our-man-in-kabul.html?pagewanted=all


Then, and unlike neocons like Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton, Kerry was NOT on the same page as Bush-Cheney, no matter how easily YOU were led into accepting that he was by corpmedia:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/09/23/53191/-John-Kerry-Consistent-on-Iraq

[Ken Burch]

89. in 2004, Kerry ran AGAINST the antiwar movement.

He wouldn't tolerate any bring-the-troops-home language in the platform and wouldn't let people hold up peace signs and banners at the convention-all of which was pointless in political terms, because he already KNEW that nobody who still backed the war agreed with the Democratic Party on anything by then...that support for the war was strictly right-wing at that juncture.

Being "humble" on a trip to Pakistan hardly makes up for that. It's not as though having troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan was somehow progressive so long as they were kept there by a president who didn't act like "a viceroy".

He could have won as the peace candidate, but he wouldn't let the American people have that choice. Being a "humble" hawk is sort of like being a nice axe murderer. And "we can do it better" isn't "stop the war".

All John Kerry had to do to win in 2004 was to be the man he'd been in 1971...but he didn't have the guts to do that anymore. He just caved in to the status quo.

[blm]

90. Baloney, Ken - you bought into a NARRATIVE that suited your inattentiveness. Plain and simple.

You didn't read a damn word in that compilation of TWO YEARS, did you?

[Ken Burch]

91. I read it. I also lived through it.

"Nuance" doesn't equal "Bring the Troops Home".

You can't be a dove between-the-lines. There's no such thing as progressive dog-whistling.

I voted for the guy in the fall, but I knew what I was getting on Iraq.

If we'd run a troops-out campaign, we could have won.

I'm not even talking about the IWR here.

[blm]

92. Pure BS. Your demand that the Dem needed to run against the reality that existed

is pure BS. No Dem nominee would run to pull the troops out of Iraq before Iraq even had its first election. Who do you think owned 95% of the broadcast news? There was no MSNBC line-up in 2003-2004, Ken.

Deal with the reality as it existed at the time, and not with what you wished it was at the time.

Your claim was also that Kerry on Iraq was no different than Bush-Cheney. That's BS. You have to reach and deny reality of Kerry's statements for that 2 years and, especially, Kerry's siding with weapon inspectors and against Bush's decision to go to war.

[Ken Burch]

105. I'll concede that he was SLIGHTLY differerent...fine.

Still, I can't justify his insistence keeping the antiwar movement(which, at the time, was soaring in support and clearly represented half the country)totally out in the cold. It simply wasn't the case that there was consensus support for "staying the course" in Iraq, or that falling in line with temporary slight majority opinion was the only possible chance. It is possible to use elections to change people's minds, and millions of U.S. voters were moving further and further away from Bush on this issue.

There was no great courage in making the Democratic position "we can do it better". Nothing there that was being done was worth TRYING to do better. Staying in Iraq for the entire first term of a Kerry presidency would NOT have been peace. And keepiing the war going would have used up so many resources that Kerry couldn't have implemented any meaningful progressive domestic policies, since it's impossible to do anything that's progressive, humane, AND cheap.

And that allegedly "democratic" Iraqi government has turned out to be a dead loss. It banned the labor movement and imposed at least a form of Sharia. Women essentially lost all their rights. The sole point of debate in Iraqi pollitics has turned out to be which "community" got the largest peace of the pie...No one, American or(although most of you who backed the war never thought they were of any value)Iraqi lives were ever worth sacrificing in the name of that sham. And it's still only a matter of time until this "government" falls.

Would Kerry as SoS ever stand with the world's poor against the world's corporations?
Would Kerry as SoS ever even consider breaking with our universally reactionary foreign policy traditions towards Latin America, Africa, and Asia?
Would he EVER break with our reflex attitude that sending in the Marines(or the Delta Force, OR Seal Team Six)must ALWAYS be the default response to a crisis? That negotiations and non-militaristic conflict resolution must never be given a chance"?
Would he ever stand up to AIPAC?

I think we both know the answer to those questions.

Kerry is a nice guy, but It seems clear now that he's abandoned everything he stood for in 1971-that he thinks the status quo and the basic notion that the U.S. MUST "lead the world" are just fine. And that today he'd be glad to ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake.

If the above weren't true, John McCain wouldn't be pushing for Kerry to be the next SoS. A partisan of the existing order always knows who he can trust to obey orders.

[blm]

106. You trust McCain and the other GOPs sincerity? Rice is a neocon who are easily manipulated by hawks.

Kerry is a noninterventionist, always has been and always will be, despite the spin applied against him.

McCain and GOP senators hate Kerry's foreign policy views and are only praising him to damn his nomination.

They are much more in sync with neocon worldview.

[tularetom]

78. The administration was smart NOT to appoint Elizabeth Warren as head of the CFPA

because they enabled a true progressive to gain a Senate seat.

On the other hand they made a HUGE mistake by appointing Janet Napolitano head of Homeland Security. Look at WTF has happened since she vacated her governor's office.

I favor the appointment of Rice for two reasons - one it keeps a Democratic senator safely in office and two, McCain absolutely despises Rice and anything that pisses that senile old fart off can't be all bad.

[bluestate10]

85. I don't understand why Progressives keep pushing Kerry.

Overall, Kerry has a hawkish record relative to Progressives' "sweet spot" SOS. I hope that President Obama nominate and appoint Diane Feinstein to the SOS post if he doesn't nominate Rice. California will be able to elect a fresh Progressive and Massachusetts won't be thrown into a Special Election.

[karynnj]

102. Let me see, how many Senators voted for Kerry/Feingold?

I think it was 13. That defines the set at that time that could have been to Kerry's left. Feinstein was not one of them - nor was Clinton or Obama. Was there any Senator other than Kerry who called Honduras a coup when it was? Not really.

[madrchsod]

86. here`s 20 pages of her financial holdings and such...

http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N99999935_2011.pdf

she has holdings across the globe therefor any country she might have an "interest in" she should what? recluse herself? that would be rather hard for a sec of state.