Besides, we all got a gander at how mean Cosmo boy really is.

up against him. Brown has been working on his image, probably with another race in sight. He recently did a big photo-op at the Pine Street Inn's Thanksgiving dinner, him and his wife. I wouldn't be cocky if I were you.

Rice is superbly qualified. The Kerry speculation is a republican invention -- meant to foster splits within the party and lower the value of Rice's coin. it stinks. We should be focusing on what's obviously the president's primary choice; Susan Rice. The Kerry talk is a deliberate diversion, now coming in talking points from republican Susan Collins today who claims to be 'troubled' by Rice. Don't play their game.

For my money the best bet would be to leave Kerry where he is and find somebody for SecDef that is outside the bubble with skills and judgment that could draw down and refocus military expenditures but still maintain defense against true rather than imagined threats. I don't think we can afford to lose Kerry in the Senate. Beyond that, someone like Ray McGovern with experience in intelligence and assessing true threats might be the best option for SecDef. We don't need to waste assets fighting an enemy that doesn't exist.

Voters like him and Elizabeth Warren didn't beat him easily. I'm not opposed to Kerry as our SoS. I am opposed to putting a Senate seat up for grabs. It doesn't seem like it's the expedient thing to do.

The GOP knew she was a Consumer Credit Advocate and that's not something they want to give any power to. Had she just be a run-of-the-mill Massachusetts Democrat who did a good job campaigning, that person would have won by double the points.

a million vote base in this state. We can't thrown just "any" democrat up against him and win. May be only one democrat in this state can beat Brown in a straight up trace now. If we go until 2016 before Kerry's seat become vacant, we can throw at least three powerful democrats up against Brown or any one else the republicans put up, one of our candidates could be a young Kennedy, yes from that clan.

I can't believe we're talking about this idea, and that Hillary would run against Jeb Bush..

Just shoot me now.

Susan Rice is perfect, we ought to just not even engage the RW on these ideas and insist on Rice, IMHO.

I get annoyed when they say GOP wants Kerry so they can give KErry's seat back to Scott Brown.

That annoys me too.

I prefer Kerry as well qualified and deserving. Nothing to do with RW rumors.

In fact, he worked with her and is loyal to the POTUS.

they just can't see putting his seat in jeopardy. Scott lost in a presidential election year, in a special election his chances improve considerably. If we could spare the seat it would be no problem. Brown won the lion of the senate's seat and national icon Ed Kennedy's seat only five months after he died. He will run again in four years bet on it, especially if Kerry doesn't run in 2016.

Just nothing that we should not be blaming Senator Kerry for something the GOP is intentionally doing. Maybe missing something. He has a right to do whatever he wants too or does he.

I am assuming, I think correctly though, that the Rs would nominate Scott Brown to try to retake the seat from the Dems. This is high wire politics.

And they have one part of the calculus right. Kerry would love to be SOS, and his name has also been floated for Defense. So they are not fully miscalculating there.

I don't think Brown would win if the Dems run a competent candidate and turnout in the special election is good and all that. But that is another story.

and that they would be better off finding a new 'Scott Brown' candidate that can pass the moderate test in Massachusetts.

candidate... and him losing is so last week. Remember, the electorate that will come out to vote, like the electorate that came after Teddy's death, is older, smaller and much more conservative.

That is the calculus.

Oh wait.....

The one thing I'm beginning to notice is that whatever devious plan the GOP might or might not be hatching by demonizing Susan Rice, is this: John Kerry is getting caught in the crossfire. All of a sudden, everyone is up in arms about Kerry possibly being nominated for SoS because that "would be playing right into the GOP's hands".

As to who can win against Brown: Deval Patrick.

It better be his first choice and I hope he does it sooner than later, because these divisive attacks on good Democrats is tiresome.

For the rest you are right. We just won 2 election cycles, including the 2010 one, where the GOP won nearly everywhere else. We can win. If anything, Coakley's loss makes us more vigilant.

maybe i should alter my original subject line.

comes off as weak in the face of bullying.

Collins is not saying she has "concerns?". Well, her biggest concern should be a knock down, drag out Senate race against the very popular, former Governor of her state, Balducci, who I hope is waiting in the wings after seeing Angus King come out of political retirement and win easily. Balducci has the statewide name recognition and organization to pound Collins into the Maine dirt.

I know what the outcome would be in my locality, and it wouldn't be good. I am aware that not everywhere is here, and that is a good thing. Still ...

What did Scott do that damaged him electorally? I missed that he embarrassed himself. Still, I am eying the polls taken in early November. Elizabeth's lead was razor thin. I thought she was the best candidate to pit against Scott, and now I'm reading that she was weak.

I am confused.

First debate he attacked her on that on his opening statement.

Yes, Warren is lilly white in color but it's not uncommon for someone who looks clearly white to have some Native american heritage in her. I mean she is originally from Oklahoma where there is a large Native American population. Brown accused her of using that claim to get into the various schools & organizations. At one point, at Brown rallys the supporters were making 'Indian Chants' when Warren's name was mentioned.

That happened early on in the campaign, and still it wasn't a walk to the win. I know I'm overly pessimistic. It's safer.

made her very unpopular with the Tea Party & GOP types. I hate to say this but in a swing state like Missouri or Indiana she would have lost. Had it just been anyone else running for the democrats, that person would have easily won by 10-15 points.

She still walked away with an 8 point win which is nothing to sneeze at!

Are you saying those are the independent voters we would depend on to swing a special election? I am not forgetting that Scott Brown won in a special election the first time, and I've never believed that lightening doesn't strike twice. Getting the Dem vote out is key and too many Democrats stay home during special and midterm elections. I am getting more uncomfortable with this idea as the conversation continues.

Democrats make up the majority of Massachusetts voters, but only barely, by around 10-15%. Republicans aren't large enough in numbers to win without Conservative democrat support and pulling in an abnormal percentage of Independents. Most of the Independent voters were former democrats that became disgusted with corruption, particularly in the Massachusetts House. That corruption was bad during the eighties and nineties, three former speakers of the House faced criminal probes, two were convicted and one was dis-barred, one of the convicted is in federal prison. During the early 2000's, we had two high profile Black democrats get convicted of bribery. The recent better fortunes of democrats in Massachusetts (the party has grown in registration) is due to clean politicians winning office. Our Governor is a clean ex-legal counsel. Our Senate is led by a dull, but unquestionably honest leader, our House is led by another dull, but honest and competent speaker. Our political leaders meet and talk through contentious political issues instead of throwing mud at each other.

When we put up a good strong candidate that gets out and campaigns, the Independent vote breaks around 66% for the democrat. If we put up a weak candidate like Coakley, that vote gets split with the republican, unless the republican is a clear moron, like Coakley's last opponent for the Attorney General office was.

Scott Brown has about a 1 million vote base, mostly because his public image is that of a nice guy. Brown damaged that image during the run against Warren, but he still got 1.2 million votes in a Presidential election year when he was running against a clearly superior opponent - and Brown has worked on his image by doing a recent highly publicized charity event. In order for democrats to beat Brown in a special election, person like Deval Patrick would have to take Brown head on and out campaign him. Patrick has credo with Independents, that group gave him a second term by providing his 6% victory margin over a very strong republican, after Jill Stein took around 3% of the Liberal democratic vote away from Patrick.

Democrats in Massachusetts have ethical leadership since Patrick took over. If the party continues to run clean, effective government, so of those un-enrolled people will rejoin the party. About 66% of un-enrolls vote for democrats, that is why our candidates normally run such wide margins. Hell, we just re-elected a shit-head democrat Congressman that didn't realize that his wife was laundering millions of dollars. He was innocent, but what the fuck?

went all over the state campaigning her behind off. Warren was the exact opposite of Coakley, who gave Brown his chance on the national stage. The Senate race was tough, even with Warren being a powerhouse, she only won by 7%, Obama won Massachusetts by 23%.

Scott Brown appears to have a base vote of 1 million votes in Massachusetts, this worries me. In a special election, turnout is typically low, especially among the people that we would need to count on for votes. I would expect Brown's people to turn out, many are poorly informed elderly and a lot of the others are haters.

At this time, Massachusetts democrats have may be one person that we could put up against Brown and defeat him, the very popular two term sitting Governor, Deval Patrick. But Patrick has recently said that he wants to finish out the two remaining years of his second term and I suspect, campaign for his Lt. Gov, who I expect to win nomination to run in 2014.

If we can get though to 2014, Patrick may be willing to run if kerry does not run for re-election. 2016 or 2017 would be even better in that our side would have Patrick, Tim Murray (current Lt. Gov, probably Gov in 2017) and Joe Kennedy III (who would have done two US House terms by then), and will still only be something like 34-36 years old - enough time for him to do one or two Senate terms before running for President.

If Kerry does run for re-election and wins, then 2016 comes into play because we will have a new democratic President and that person may want Kerry in her Cabinet. Massachusetts democrats should be able to easily defend an open seat after the 2016 election, we would have more problems doing that now, although we would be good in 2014 if Kerry does not seek re-election.

Patrick can definitely beat Brown and is probably the favorite in a theoretical match up. The only problem I foresee is that Kerry may actually be vulnerable in '14 if he keeps being portrayed in the media (unfairly) as desperately wanting out of the Senate and into the SoS position. If his opponent (likely Brown) looks like he wants to be in the Senate more and is more passionate about it, he could possibly beat Kerry, especially considering it's a midterm Senate race.

DU is my only window into your state's politics, so I depend on you all. When Teddy was in the Senate, I adopted him as my senator, because he rarely failed to represent my interests. You all hold a special place in my heart because of it, so I'm probably more deeply invested than is logical.

Start at the local level. Strong Mayors and Council members ultimately become state leaders and one day win national office - that is where republicans focused over the last 40 years while we were asleep at the controls. Political dynamics are changing. Young people, even in states like yours have information from all over and can make comparisons, they just need people t put a bug in their ear for them to seek the truth.

But I have two words for you. Deb Fischer. 'nuff said.

What people like you need to do is develop young politicians at the local level and push them on to the state and national levels. The key is to have honest politicians that have solid policy proposals.

However, I will point out that the battle in this state at this time is at the primary level. Deb Fischer is a measure of how far we have to go to gain any traction in this state. I hear what you are saying. We need candidates, but it's very hard to recruit when the outlook is so grim. It is a conundrum. Our resources are few and our national support is nonexistent. We will soldier on, but I don't expect miracles.

He still has solid support in the state.

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/senate/massachusetts/

Who should be SoS is not something I'm really qualified to suggest. I just don't have enough information on international affairs or the people who might fill that job well. But I like Kerry right where he is.

My feeling is that Obama has been painted in a corner and must nominate Rice for SOS. Rice is a better choice than Clark because she has been in a hot seat for four years and has been impressive at the UN. Clark has vast experience as a General and diplomat, he negotiated the deal that borough international troops in to stop the killing in Bosnia, and Croatia. Clark was also the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and led negotiations and the air war with Serbia to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and to set up the path for Montenegro to declare freedom from it confederation with Serbia. I like Rice for SOS and Clark for SOD. If Clark does not get SOD, then Jim Webb would be an excellent choice due to him being a war hero, high ranking Marine officer and two term US Senator.

to appoint Rice?

over something that hasn't even happened. President Obama will announce his choice eventually.

We need all the Dems we can get in the Senate. A special election or a mid term election doesn't get the turnout that a presidential election year gets. This helps Republicans. Also, Brown has name recognition and an organization up and ready and enough money to make a big play.

Obviously, a lot would ride on who his opponent is. But Brown starts with the advantage of having run two statewide campaigns -- one successful, one not. But keep in mind that he outperformed Romney in the state by a quarter of a million votes and Warren had the advantage of running in a presidential election year in which the top of the ticket was extremely popular in the state -- so much so that President Obama outperformed Elizabeth Warren by nearly a quarter of a million votes. In a special election, against an opponent without an extant statewide apparatus (and, in all likelihood, without the statewide name recognition), and without presidential coattails, Brown likely starts as the favorite. Whether he finishes on top is dependant on any number of things, most of which are unknown at this time.

likely have gotten an iron clad agreement from Deval Patrick that Patrick will run to fill the seat. Patrick certainly has the statewide name recognition as a popular two term Governor of the state. Patrick also has a statewide organization that stayed up after his last election and which he uses to help him govern.

I will list them:
- The 2010 Special election to fill the Kennedy seat. Martha Coakley could have saved us some anguish by running a competent campaign, but she didn't. Right wing zealots and money came from all over the country to support Brown. Brown's best weapon was Coakley, who seemed arrogant about her chances and disinterested in ground level campaigning. We were crushed by losing that race and that lost set the tone for the big year republicans had in 2010.
- Later that year, the 2010 Gubernatorial race. We had to defends an incumbent that came into the race with a 34% approval rating due to the bad national economy, his own policies were good, as time would show. The republican party threw tens of millions and many people into that race, it was a struggle for us.
- The recent election that had Elizabeth Warren unseat Brown, elected a Kennedy to the House and protected the House seat of John Tierney, who was fucking stupid enough to have been married to a woman who was laundering millions of dollars for her criminal brother. Amazingly, Tierney didn't fucking have a clue about what was going on, that was proven in court - but republicans put a good candidate up against him who we had to beat back to keep Massachusetts blue.

We are fucking tired. If we get another special election, I have no idea of what will happen. Yes Scott Brown made an ass of himself in the Warren race, but he has been rehabilitating his image with well reported charity events. In addition, even though he was a ass with Warren, Brown got around 1.2 million votes against probably the most appealing candidate that we could have thrown up against him.

Sure we liked here here at DU along with other progressives. I know I was excited to see a candidate who truly supports the 99% running for office. She fought for the lil people against big banks which is a very noble progressive cause but one that has little appeal to GOP/Tea Partiers. I think in a lesser state she would have lost just because the GOP/Tea Party sees her as an aggressor against the 1%. Probably moreso than any other democratic candidate out there.

Both Murphy and Warren won by about 8%. In Mass and CT Obama won by double digits but 8 points is still not close at all. I still don't see him as a shoe-in for election. I do understand that Mass voters are exhausted from the last few elections though.

That base size is huge in a Special election.

in any role. Based on accounts of Rice's determined support for the Libya and Syria interventions, and of Kerry's cordial relations with Assad, I would very much like to add his voice to the decision making on foreign affairs. There's only so much he can do as Senator and I absolutely do not support continued interference with Syria or any other MENA nation. What happened in Libya was disgraceful and I'm not talking about Benghazi. Let Britain fight its own damn gas wars, and do it openly, instead of backing phony "rebels," a trick they've been pulling with our gullible assistance since 1953. So they lost their empire, too bad. The world is much better off. They can go back to raising sheep if need be.

And now some of us don't think he should even be on the cabinet?

C'mon now, Massachusetts has a fine delegation in the House. I reckon any one of them could beat Scott Brown in a special election.

can beat Brown. No one. Joe Kennedy III will be ready in a term or two if he does well in the US House as expected. I saw one Congressman mentioned, the problem with that Congressman is that he is an urban representative who won't be able to match Brown in the vote rich central part of the state.

The only person that could beat Brown now is Deval Patrick, Patrick is the sitting Governor, is popular, has statewide name recognition, is powerful in the coastal regions and the western part of the state and would run even with or better than Brown in the central part of the state.

I know he's committed to the House, buy do you not think he could beat Brown?

to run in the moderate Middlesex-Worcester area. Markey is embedded in a centrist, vote rich part of the state that Brown must outperform in to win. Another poster mentioned Marty Meehan, my sense is that Meehan would be a stretch because he has been out of politics for so long, but one benefit is that he has turned one of the state's universities into a star performer for technical disciplines. The other poster may not like Deval Patrick, but Patrick is an excellent Governor, has statewide support and can step in and beat Brown.

I think everybody needs to chill a little bit and let this thing blow over.Mrs.Hillary Clinton has clearly said that she will continue in her post and serve as SoS till a successor is identified and confirmed.No timelines are proposed here and in any case there will be no nomination/confirmation hearing till after the Presidential Inauguration in late January and after the new Senate convenes with a larger Democratic majority. I feel it is going to be tough for the GOP to keep the drumbeat going for that long. Especially since there is a 6 week recess coming up. Also the secretary of Defense post is not even available.Sec.Panetta is barely 16 months into his term and although would like to get back to his Institute in CA he has mentioned no timeline to step down and in fact is working on troop levels fr 2014. Let everybody howl around for a while till they get it out of their system.Even after all these rhetoric a majority of Americans see no deliberate attempt to mislead the public on this issue from the Administration

who would...that's a big head start.

they have nothing better to do so someone might have reported on something.

how cowardly we are; it is off-putting how we are quick to assert that Republicans will win because...whatever...

I tire of this defeatist, whiner attitude coming from Democrats--not all--but a good number of them.

No one here is afraid. We just don't want another tough election right now.

And I specifically stated that NOT ALL Dems are like this, but a good number of us do suffer from a heightened sense of inferiority. Obama hasn't even confirmed who his nominee is and we're already speak of defeat.

End of story. He is still wildly popular in this state (more popular than Warren) and special elections rely more on GOTV than any other. People wanted to vote for him. The fact that he only lost by 8 points in a Presidential year is a feat unto itself. He pulls Dem voters too.

Some of your "facts" are way off base btw.

We will have a difficult enough time holding the Senate in 2014 without putting Kerry's seat up for grabs.
There is no Democrat we could run in a special election that would be likely to beat Brown.

President Obama knows the answer to.

Patrick's chances of winning would be substantially lower in a special election,
and he'd have to leave the Governor's office early.

We have so many Democratic Senators up for re-election next year that it would
be folly to risk a safe seat. It could easily cost us the Senate.

And low-turnout elections massively favor Republicans.

2) Brown just had a campaign infrastructure up and running. Getting that back up and running is much easier than the Democrat creating a new one.

3) Brown out-performed Romney by about 20% of the vote. Lots of MA voters still like Brown, they just liked Warren slightly better.

Add those three together, and it will be a very tough contest for the Democrats.

Your other points aren't insignificant either -- I'm just surprised it took this many posts for that point to be made.

Brown has mounted two Senatorial campaigns in three years. That's got to be something of an advantage over someone starting from scratch.

Seems Kerry is one of the most powerful of the 100 senators, is up there in seniority, has the Presidents ear, has a brand new untested partner in Mass. Senate who could use some help as the senate rules are not all that easy to understand

and leading from the left, who is a better choice?

Why would he want a different job? I know I wouldn't.

Don't understand when the senate became a bad place to be. Sure is insulting to Ted Kennedy himself who spent decades there.

You are correct on your facts, especially that Coakley ran the worst campaign? She just gave him the seat. Man, that pissed me off. She didn't even try.

Sorry that seat was hers to win and she managed to screw it up.

As much as I'd love to see another woman in the US Senate, I'd rather see anyone who wants to do the work to campaign and win that seat!

That was from your link too. Yea, that's reassuring.

Has Panetta indicated that he will be stepping down as Secretary of Defense? Why is there so much speculation about that appointment? Explain it to me, please.

so dont ask me.

It seems some people at the WH have leaked that as a consolation price at the same time they spinned Rice for SoS. May be it would be wise to let Obama decide and announce his decision. Who knows, it may be Hagel (latest rumor of the day. I wonder who leaked that one).

DUers from Mass. could weigh in on it, but to me it seems over-simplistic to assume Brown can win the other seat. He just lost, too, so it's different. Has a senate loser ever run for the other seat and won?

the position--and Obama wanted him-- and yet wasn't considered solely because of what MIGHT happen to his seat.