State or in the Senate?

Who is likely to run for his position? A Kennedy?

If we want a name that has some serious creds on this issue and has actually real links to MA, this is the one. (and it is not as if we risked losing the 7th district to a Republican).

Glad to see this kind of thing out there.

.

I also think that global warming itself is kind of hit or miss with DU. They were happy when it was Gore's movie vs Bush and Gore was a hero, but most seem not all that consistent. They also seemed to have no clue that Kerry had the best Senate record.

Frankly, I have always been less than impressed by her, but today this is really ridiculous:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/18/john-kerry-now-the-republicans-favorite-democrat/
Of course the platitude about needing a woman or a minority. While I agree that women should be represented largely in the cabinet and not only in subsidiary positions, why does it have to be in State (and frankly why are they not criticizing Hagel, who after all is a Republican).

I have not read the full article, but I found the premise interesting, and far away from the previous one.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/team-of-mentors-biden-kerry-and-hagel-are-obamas-senate-mafia/266445/

To me what is interesting is that if he gets Kerry and Hagel, which seems pretty likely, the national security team alliances will be very very different than the first term. From many accounts, Biden, though extremely influential, was often the odd man out. It would seem that Biden, Kerry and Hagel would be a very strong sub group.

I like the order that he used here: "Kerry-Hagel-Biden doctrine" When Hagel left the Senate, he joined the foreign policy think tank that Kerry is associated with - that is headed by Gary Hart. http://americansecurityproject.org/about/board-of-directors/

so they have experience working on these issues together.

too bad Feingold isn't in the Senate anymore, he would have been foreign relations chairman after Kerry.

is reappearing. It would obviously satisfy quite a few lobby (a woman, somewhat hawkish, and getting rid of a perceived Israel foe), but it also would mean that the peace side of the equation would be diminished.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/politics/chuck-hagel-candidate-for-defense-post-criticized-by-jewish-leaders.html?_r=0

I've heard this more than once in the media: How close Susan Rice is to President Obama. It's beginning to sound sordid.

And, if they are "that close" one could question if the President was really being objective in his choice of SOS.

not just picking them because they happen to be a certain sex or race.
And, the President never said his favorite choice was Susan Rice, that was the media's narrative. Personally, I think he intended to nominate Senator Kerry all along. If you remember right after the election, it was all about Kerry Becoming SOS, in the media, and them the Republicans ramped up their criticizm of Rice. It was only after the President rightfully defended her, that she became the media's idea of the President's first choice.
And, Smith is an idiot who knows absolutely nothing.