Multiple news reports: John Kerry to State

[babylonsister]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/15/1170374/-Multiple-news-reports-John-Kerry-to-State#

Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 09:59 AM PST
Multiple news reports: John Kerry to State

by kosFollow


There's no official announcement yet, but multiple media sources claim that Sen. John Kerry will get the appointment.

If true, it would be the successful culmination of Senate Republican efforts to push President Barack Obama in that direction. Kerry has overtly wanted the gig for a long time, and it seemed the only thing that stood in his way was Susan Rice. With her successful dispatch over a bogus scandal, Kerry was the natural successor.

This is important because it opens up the Massachusetts Senate race to a special election, and one in which Scott Brown will likely feature as the comeback candidate. Brown significantly outperformed his ticket, losing by eight points while former home-state governor Mitt Romney lost by 23. And let's not forget, the most potent argument Elizabeth Warren had against Brown -- that his reelection could deliver the U.S. Senate to Mitch McConnell, is no longer operative.

Brown may have taken a hit in the state this past election, particularly given his nasty, racist campaign. But he remains surprisingly popular for a Republican in a Indigo Blue state. A special election won't be a sure hold for our party. It'll be nuclear war.

[dkf]

1. I like Kerry as SOS. I think he will be an advocate for staying out of more adventurism.

[Terra Alta]

63. would you also like Scott Brown as the junior Senator from MA?

Because that's probably what would end up happening if Kerry becomes Secretary of State.

[dkf]

85. One more or less senator isn't as big a deal as getting us into wars.

Even Hillary is a bit hawkish for me and Susan Rice is scary. I wish we could have stayed out of Libya completely.

[Lionessa]

2. Obama in his fear of having an actual fight over anything,

rolls over again and gives the Repubs exactly what they asked for. Totally disgusting. He should have chosen ANYONE except who they told him to pick.

And yes, I am one that worries about the potential replacement election in MA as well. Since Elizabeth Warren is already elected, I don't see anyone else that might be able to take on Scott Brown. It will be his to win or lose, our candidate will likely make no difference in the race at all, it will all be about Scott Brown. If he shoots himself in the foot again, then we might keep the seat, if not, then it's the dumbest choice Obama could make.

[babylonsister]

3. Excuse me?

How about the possibility that Kerry was chosen because he's qualified? Your attitude is totally disgusting imo.

[Lionessa]

11. This isn't about Kerry as far as I'm concerned. Of course he and 100's of others are

qualified.

For me it is about how quickly and obediently Obama chose who they told him to. Less than three weeks since Susan Rice was floated, a little over month since he was re-elected with a mandate, and yet his opponent from 2008 just picked the SoS.

Though you're POV isn't innaccurate, it does not in anyway disturb mine from also being entirely accurate.

[ShadesOfBlue]

69. let it go

1)There is still no proof that Rice was going to be THE pick. Some reports indicate Obama was torn beween her and Kerry.

2)Even though Kerry actually fought in a war, he is less hawkish than Rice (and H. Clinton as well).

3)Kerry also has no ties that I'm aware of to the Keystone Pipeline. Rice did and that was a conflict that would have come up during the confirmation process...by LIBERAL senators. It is the office of the Secretary of State that is handling the whole pipeline proposal after all.

4)Mass. does have a couple of Democratic propsects who can go up against Brown and win. It is up to the people of the state to do the right thing. Hey, if the Dem who is chosen comes out immediately for gun control he/she will have an even bigger leg up.

5)Kerry is one of the most high profile political advocates for dealing with climate change. A huge plus.


It is a shame about what happened to Rice but she will land nicely in another high profile position. And who knows. Four years from now maybe she will get that Secretary of State position if Hillary wins in 2016. But the bad blood will linger between Obama and the Republican trio who were intent on destroying her good name. This isn't over by any means on that front.

[Lionessa]

71. No.

He's caved again. I won't be letting it go. There is so much on the table right now, caving on this just sets the pace as exactly the same as it was four years ago. Very disappointing that the guy who campaigns on change.... better than the alternative, just not by much.

[DonViejo]

83. "100's of others are qualified"....

Please provide us with a list of just one hundred (not the hundreds you claim) others qualified to be Secretary of State.

[robinlynne]

77. I think having this Senate seat up for grabs is a terrible idea for our country.

That says nothing about Kerry's abilities or Kerry. The point is what is best for our country and democracy. Removing a good senator right now is a bad idea.

[ProSense]

5. That's absolutely absurd.

There a number of Democrats who can and will kick Brown or any other Republican's ass.

BREAKING NEWS: Kerry Selected for Secretary of State - Support Markey to replace him starting TODAY!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/15/1170311/-Kerry-Selected-for-Secretary-of-State-Support-Ed-Markey-to-replace-him-starting-TODAY

[Lionessa]

12. I surely hope you are right, but I recall hearing about how all the seats

he emptied in 2008 were going to be easy to replace, and guess what, we got Scott Brown and others. It didn't turn out as y'all ever hopeful types hoped for.

[DonViejo]

80. Oh! Now it's the President's fault because MA Democrats

didn't turn out to vote?

[Cha]

8. That's not true. Easy to make cheap shots over the internet when you don't know

anything about what actually happened.

[Lionessa]

13. So, Obama didn't suggest Susan Rice, McCain didn't cause a ruckus and demand

John Kerry instead by suggesting that he would support Kerry but not Rice, Rice didn't drop out, and Obama didn't give McCain what he asked for?

Hmm, me thinks it is thee who is uninformed.

[Cha]

17. If Susan wanted it.. I have no doubt

they would go through it together. It was obviiously her decision. She's intelligent enough to chose what she wants to do and I think the President would back her up if she were indeed his first choice. That's not known.

Fuck John McCain and his posse.. this will blow back on those Lying POS' just like Elizabeth Warren's current position did.

[Lionessa]

19. Not about Susan Rice, it's about Obama,

and he have no idea if he would've had that fight. What we do know is that now at this moment he is letting McCain pick SoS.

[Cha]

21. Yes, it is about Susan Rice as it was her decision to have her

name Withdrawn.

And he's not letting McCain do shit.

[NYC Liberal]

28. Wrong. Republicans wanted Rice, NOT Kerry.

Haven't people here learned enough about Republicans to know their MO? They attempt reverse psychology all the time.

Republicans attacked Rice to goad Obama into nominating her if for no other reason than out of spite. They then would have gone all out in the confirmation. Remember in 2003-04 when Rove went around saying he would love for Dean to be the nominee? And then we learned later that in fact Dean was the one Rove most feared.

And Brown is damaged goods. He cannot run as a moderate now. That moderate schtick (plus a bad campaign by Coakley) is why he won in 2010. Once he amassed a record in the Senate, he was promptly kicked to the curb.

[Lionessa]

29. That's a possibility, but I doubt it.

McCain can't even play checkers as far as I've ever seen. This level of chess is way above his and Lindsey Graham's heads.

[NYC Liberal]

31. It doesn't require any grand plan or chess playing.

Just a simple attempt at reverse psychology.

Besides, isn't it more likely that it was Rice herself who decided she did not want to go through the fight? Obama has skin in the game, sure, but ultimately it is she who would have had to go through it all with the barrage of nonstop attacks and scrutiny into every aspect of her life. Obama seemed to be preparing for it, and I think she was considering it but then told him no.

[backscatter712]

52. It could be that Obama was playing games too.

The usual strategy for a President is to first nominate a controversial candidate, get the opponents screaming and yelling and going apeshit. Fight for a few weeks, get everyone sick of the whole damned circus, then withdraw the nominee, and nominate the person who you really wanted for the job.

How do you think Clarence Thomas got in the Supreme Court?

[phleshdef]

35. Thats fucking stupid. Kerry was a top contender before ANY of this ever happened.

And you damn well know it. Cut the bullshit.

If we can't defend a seat in blue, blue Massachusettes, then we don't deserve the seat. Thats just pathetic. We only lost Kennedy's seat to Scott Brown because we ran a shitty candidate who was a clueless campaigner. John Kerry is getting old anyway. He can't hold that seat forever. If John Kerry had his way in 2004, he would've been retired from political life as of this January.

[Lionessa]

81. Then Kerry shouldn't have run for Senate and should've made sure

a Dem got his seat, imo. He hedged his bets, and now it's a problem. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong, and a Dem, progressive will get his seat, but I do worry.

[JI7]

86. his last run for senate was in 2008

[Lionessa]

87. I see, my bad.

I will adapt my thinking accordingly, I forget that Senators are on a weird schedule.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

75. Better than Keystone Rice. Get over it. nt

[ProSense]

4. Kos is buying into the

If true, it would be the successful culmination of Senate Republican efforts to push President Barack Obama in that direction. Kerry has overtly wanted the gig for a long time, and it seemed the only thing that stood in his way was Susan Rice. With her successful dispatch over a bogus scandal, Kerry was the natural successor.

...bullshit RW frame. There is absolutely no evidence that Rice was President Obama's choice, and the notion that Republicans' plan was for Kerry to be appointed is absurd.

Kerry was likely the first choice, and Republicans saw pushing Rice under the guise of an attack as an opportunity to force his hand, knowing that the left would object. They were desperate for an opportunity to escalate Benghazi.

Sorry suckers.

[Lionessa]

14. Well we won't know for sure until his replacement is elected.

If it turns out as badly as last time Obama drained Dems from the Senate, the frame will seem quite accurate.

[woo me with science]

6. It's a win-win for the corporate team.

Kerry voted for the war in Iraq.

And we likely lose a Democratic seat.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=337938

The corporatists are very good at what they do.

[ProSense]

9. You can't seem to

make up your mind

"Perhaps the administration is not really all that into having progressive majorities in Congress."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=337938

As I pointed out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=337941

[Lionessa]

16. How are the poster's two comment in conflict?

Corporations by our pols, including the Pres, and the administration needs a weak Dem Senate to allow the corporations to get most of what they want.

Makes sense to me.

[ProSense]

20. No, it's nonsense.

The poster claimed:

"Perhaps the administration is not really all that into having progressive majorities in Congress."

The poster appears to be saying Kerry is a progressive and the Senate will be less progressive because of this nomination.

Isn't it good that the administration appointed a progressive as SOS?

Your comment is simply reiterating a nonsensical point:

"Corporations by our pols, including the Pres, and the administration needs a weak Dem Senate to allow the corporations to get most of what they want. "

If Kerry is one more buffer against corporations, then that is exactly the kind of person one wants as SOS.

You can't have it both ways.

[Lionessa]

22. You are being obtuse, of course it fits.

You don't see it because you don't want to and your history more than proves that.

Always rahrah-ing about how Obama will do this or that, right up till he doesn't do it and caves to corps/Repubs, then full of all the reasons why he is perfect in his failure.

[ProSense]

23. Oh bullshit.

Don't be pissed that everyone isn't joining you in trying to portray the President as someone who can't think for himself.

You want to make McCain, a nobody sore loser, out to be some kingmaker, go ahead.

"Always rahrah-ing about how Obama will do this or that..."

He won: Rah fucking rah!

[Lionessa]

24. I never expect anyone to join me, and I'm not pissed. You however,

are definitely losing your cool with everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Actually it would be highly more accurate to say you lose your cool with everyone who doesn't think the President is practically perfect in every way. In other topics you seem more amenable to disagreement.

[ProSense]

25. LOL!

"You however, are definitely losing your cool with everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Stop projecting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1992005

[Lionessa]

27. Observatins do not require emotional attachment.

I am concerned about Obama's caving in because there is a lot on the table for him to cave about in the next year. So his beginning by caving AGAIN as he did his first term is quite concerning.

[ProSense]

34. Wait

Observatins do not require emotional attachment.

I am concerned about Obama's caving in because there is a lot on the table for him to cave about in the next year. So his beginning by caving AGAIN as he did his first term is quite concerning.

...isn't that an observation? You're assuming you know what the President was thinking based on McCain's actions, and you're upset("emotional attachment&quot .

I think your observation is absurd because you're assuming McCain has leverage.

You also need to read Susan Rice's opinion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974788

Somehow I doubt you'll give her as much credit as you're giving McCain.

[Lionessa]

42. Concerned is not the same as upset. Nice try though.

With that I'm done with you on this topic as I find you have one continuous drone when it comes to Obama's actions. In your mind he can apparently do no wrong, has done no wrong, and is practically perfect in everyway.

[ProSense]

43. Another silly observation. n/t

[Lionessa]

45. Less silly than your extreme devotion to Obama.

[ProSense]

54. I'm lucky that way.

I get to vote for someone without holding my nose and support them and good policies too, like health care reform: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021978966

I'm still thanking the President for that one.

All in all, I'd say your observations, including McCain as kingmaker, are silly.

[Lionessa]

56. Perhpas lucky,

perhaps a laughable poster. Depends on ones' POV. Many agree with you, others agree with me. Ain't it great we get to have differing opinions.

I'd have enjoyed having someone I didn't have to hold my nose to vote for, but no such candidate was available. Of course I have a sensitive nose that misses little. Yours apparently is rather more basic.

[ProSense]

61. Wow,

"Many agree with you, others agree with me. Ain't it great we get to have differing opinions."

...you mean I'm entitled to my opinion? Brilliant!

"I'd have enjoyed having someone I didn't have to hold my nose to vote for, but no such candidate was available. Of course I have a sensitive nose that misses little. Yours apparently is rather more basic."

Really? Sounds like a cop out.

[Lionessa]

68. You are just so strange,

the accusations you put forth based on the quotes you pull make no sense.

It's not a cop out on my part that there were no good candidates, that's a cop out on the part of the Parties. Surprisingly they don't let me choose their candidates, they let the corporatists and the 1%ers.

[ProSense]

73. Nonsense.

"It's not a cop out on my part that there were no good candidates, that's a cop out on the part of the Parties."

It's a cop out. I voted for Barack Obama because he was the best candidate.

You're hiding behind a strawman cop out. I'm sure you could have found a more perfect candidate, one more closely aligned with your positions, if you really wanted to.

Barack Obama
Mitt Romney
Gary Johnson
Jill Stein
Virgil Goode
Roseanne Barr
Rocky Anderson
Tom Hoefling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

[Lionessa]

79. Yes Pro-Nonsense as it were. Tee hee.

I could have done as you say, though to do so would risk the worst possible outcome and the math didn't support that option.

And remember, as I've admittedly no heart, all decisions are mathematically determined by weighing the pros and cons. I just don't make emotional decisions. It drives folks nuts, I get that.

[ProSense]

82. Aw, you're regressing to four years old.

"I could have done as you say, though to do so would risk the worst possible outcome and the math didn't support that option."

So you agree that it was your choice not to select a better candidate. Hey, now you get to live with your decision.

That's what grown ups do.

[woo me with science]

60. "Spit spot!"

I Love to Laugh, and I have little patience for the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. Sometimes it's hard to Stay Awake for this stuff.

Well done.

[leftstreet]

30. I agree with you

Corporations by our pols, including the Pres, and the administration needs a weak Dem Senate to allow the corporations to get most of what they want.

Makes sense to me.

That was the point the poster was making, and you're both dead on

[ProSense]

47. The irony is that

those screaming "corporatist" appear to be upset that the President didn't name Susan Rice to the position.

What is it about Susan Rice that is appealing to you?

Seems to me this is simply an opportunity to slam the President by hyping McCain to claim he caved. I doubt you really supported Rice as SOS.

[leftstreet]

55. You're wrong

I (and many others here) didn't want Rice either

This isn't a 'oh you must want Palin' thing, k?

It's about watching the Democrats pursue an agenda of weakening their majorities so they can sit back and claim victim status

But you already know all this

[ProSense]

62. "I (and many others here) didn't want Rice either"

Oh, so you were against both Obama's choices, but somehow you're pissed he's taking Kerry?

[woo me with science]

76. Well...yes.

If there is anything the corporatists have taught us, it is that being given two choices does not necessarily equal being given a good choice.

[ProSense]

78. More nonsense.

"If there is anything the corporatists have taught us, it is that being given two choices does not necessarily equal being given a good choice. "

It's not your choice. It's the President's, you know, the President you consider a "corporatist."

Evidently, no one taught you about the nomination process.

[woo me with science]

84. You, on the other hand,

were thoroughly instructed in selective literalism.

[woo me with science]

57. These posts are getting pretty desperate, Prosense.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10021959094#post3

woo me with science (16,928 posts)
3. Kerry should stay in his seat,

and we should have a new SOS choice who does not have a history of serious conflicts of interests with the oil industry and a track record of approving warmongering.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1898881

woo me with science (16,928 posts
31. In what universe are we supposed to be happy about an SOS pick who is a warmonger and who has intimate ties to Big Oil?

This sounds to me more like a scam to get Dems to celebrate exactly the sort of SOS we should be opposing.

Removing Kerry from the Senate or placing Rice at SOS should not be the only options here.

[ProSense]

66. That still makes no sense.

Kerry should stay in his seat,

and we should have a new SOS choice who does not have a history of serious conflicts of interests with the oil industry and a track record of approving warmongering.

I mean, you're claiming that "the administration is not really all that into having progressive majorities in Congress" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=337938), but you consider Kerry someone with a "history of serious conflicts of interests with the oil industry and a track record of approving warmongering"?

How would removing a person like that change the "progressive majorities in Congress"?

Shouldn't you be interested in removing such a person and hoping that MA elects a progressive?

Speaking of desperate, I think you cornered the market.

[woo me with science]

67. Oh, my. nt

[ProSense]

74. "Oh, my"? Can't

you admit that fear of Scott Brown doesn't really mesh with your ramblings?

I mean, you're trying to play the progressive and posting over and over about losing a seat to an exposed and now washed up politician.

[patrice]

41. Let's hear your scenario right now, for how to get rid of corporatists: Who/What/Where/Why/HOW?

and, perhaps most importantly, given global climate issues, WHEN you expect successful completion of our agenda to either get rid of corporatists or reduce their effect to something that can "be drowned in a bathtub"? How long before substantial and essential change?

I mean it; let us hear it. Your best HYPOTHETICAL (so it doesn't HAVE to be perfect by any means) sketch of how your plan is going to work to get ALL of us to where we need to go and WHEN we can expect results that will actually survive in perpetuity.

Please & thanks.

[Lionessa]

49. There have been many on the table over the past four years,

and yet no banksters are in jail through Federal efforts, corporate VIPs are still getting golden parachutes for killing their businesses, conglomerates are getting bigger, drilling is even more widespread even though no one at the related agency or corporations were held to account for the lack of accountability on safety regulations.

There has been no lack of ideas, even bills, put forth to moderate corporate dominance, and the dominance of the 1-2%. So how would more ideas as you demand be of any use to someone ignoring all the others one's already presented over 4+ years?

[patrice]

53. My question was directed at woo me with "science" . nt

[woo me with science]

64. Actually, Lionessa gave a really good answer.

I'll agree with that.

[patrice]

46. Are you a Libertarian? & Please note that I left my " " off for YOU. nt

[woo me with science]

65. As usual,

I am thoroughly baffled by your posts, patrice.

But here's a nice guy with a guitar for you!

[Matariki]

7. Kerry would make a great Secretary of State

And it would be cruel to deny him a post he clearly wants and not reward his many years of hard work just because Scott Brown could potentially gain Kerry's Senate seat.

[democrattotheend]

59. Agreed

Especially given that he's from one of the most Democratic states in the country. If the president wanted to poach someone like Jay Rockefeller I'd be way more upset.

[ShadesOfBlue]

70. not to mention....

that Obama owes him in some ways (now that Rice isn't an option). Kerry gave an unknown Obama the keynote speech in 2004 and Kerry was one of the folks who helped prep Obama for his national defense debate with Romney.

[indepat]

10. Thank God the President was re-elected: otherwise Republicans would be calling the shots on

Cabinet posts.

[nc4bo]

15. Aren't they doing just that anyway?

Rice (conflict of interest notwithstanding) was basically railroaded right off the table. McCain & Co. said she shouldn't be/wasn't qualified to be SOS and taa-daaa........she will not be.

They wanted JK since the beginning and lookie what they're going to be getting!

If this were say a Pres. Shrub, it would not matter what the opposition thought or said. Whatever Shrub and Dickie wanted, that's what they would get.

[Cha]

18. We don't know that Susan Rice was his first choice,

do we? I give the President more credit than that.. this is all speculation.

If this were say a Pres. Shrub, it would not matter what the opposition thought or said. Whatever Shrub and Dickie wanted, that's what they would get.

And, look where it got them.. they couldn't even show their faces at the big ol rnc.

[patrice]

32. Somebody needs to walk that back & see where it actually came from FIRST.

You'd think if the president had said that she was on a list, or high in consideration to be put on a list, or was his first choice, we'd know exactly and precisely when he said that.

Am I the only one who kind of remembers some PO words in his reactions to the Benghazi accusations that, not only were investigations very much underway, but also significant developments were expected?

WHY are people forgetting or ignoring how completely fucking SIGNIFICANT it is that the CIA WAS COMPROMISED in Benghazi? How did safe-house information get out to those who murdered Ambassador Stevens??????? Security issues in Southwest Asia have PROBLEMS, even if Rice isn't directly or even in-directly implicated, it makes sense that State doesn't NEED even a remote chance of being affected by whatever the hell is going on there.

[Lionessa]

26. Exactly.

[patrice]

37. So you think there is no possibility that it wasn't reverse psychology to steer PO off of Kerry who

is in deep and, in terms of electoral ir-regularities occurring in Ohio in '04, perhaps dangerously close to certain dimensions of the Republican party? some of which Republicans are speaking on international issues NOW through Lawrence Wilkerson, who HAS BACKED JOHN KERRY ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES EVER SINCE '04.

John McCain & certain other Republicans USED Susan Rice and others, here at DU and elsewhere, blamed PO for them.

[Lionessa]

44. No I don't. I think they really want Kerry out of the Senate,

and want another chance at replacing him with a Repub, probably Scott Brown, as they did in 2009.

[patrice]

51. 0 possibility of reverse psychology? Not even 50:50. Do you admit how non-rational that position is?

Even I must admit some probability that your scenario MAY be right; I'll be generous and give it 50:50 - 50% chance that you are right, compared to 50% chance that reverse psychology is right.

And, in the light of what we call knowledge, the methods and processes of empirical rationalism by means of which we produce what is referred to as knowledge, you are claiming an absolute 0 probability that reverse psychology is the primary trait of the Republican Rice agenda?

FYI, that's not rational; does that matter to you? Or is it okay to you simply because it is your opinion, i.e. not necessarily knowledge.

Not intended as an insult to you, I just need to know how this works.

[phleshdef]

33. Kerry was ALWAYS the better choice anyway. I like Susan Rice, but she is hawkish and no John Kerry.

[Cha]

36. And, if this is indeed true.. then we

have to Beat Scott Brown again.. IF.

[phleshdef]

38. Theres no excuse for us to not hold that seat. None. Its Massachusettes for Christ sake.

There was no excuse for Scott Brown even getting that seat in the first place. We ran a horrible candidate.

[Cha]

40. I know.. just sayin' I have a

cyberbuddy in Mass who worked her arse off along with everyone else who volunteered and canvassed for Elizabeth and they're resting now but will, no doubt, be up for it Again. If and when that time comes.

[GoCubsGo]

39. I'll believe it when I see it.

Until then, this is just speculation, not to mention a dog whistle for the Swiftboaters to rear their uglyass heads again.

[Terra Alta]

48. I hope the reports are wrong.

I truly hope Obama didn't give in to Repukes like McCain and his ilk. We need Kerry in the Senate. Why give Scott Brown another chance at a Senate seat?? Dumb move by Obama if true, but I'll wait on the official announcement.

[backscatter712]

50. Kerry will be a great SoS.

He's got decades of experience in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - he's damned qualified.

I just hope the Democrats have someone better than Martha Croakley to run for Kerry's Senate seat... At least Scott Brown is damaged goods now.

[democrattotheend]

58. I agree

I have always thought Kerry was the best person for the job. I thought so in 2008, although I cannot deny that Clinton has done a great job.

There are plenty of good Democrats in MA who I am sure will be better candidates than Martha Coakley. Plus, Democrats are prepared this time.

[PragmaticLiberal]

72. Good news...imo. This is the outcome I wanted all along.

Rice is more than qualified but frankly, she's not well liked by folks on either side of the aisle.



But with that being said, I hate the way Sen. McCain (and friends) treated her.

[Heywood J]

88. John Kerry is 70.

I don't get how he wants a 24/7 always-on stressful job with constant jet-lag at that age.