You guys can root for Kerry, Hillary or Richardson for SecofState...

'Cause I'm pulling for this gal:



Dr. Susan Elizabeth Rice

"She has a reputation for being blunt-spoken, but also for being a politically connected fast-riser. A protégé of Madeleine K. Albright when she was secretary of state, Ms. Rice catapulted over more veteran officials in 1997 to become one of the youngest assistant secretaries of state ever. She also brings early experience with Al Qaeda; Ms. Rice was the top diplomat for African issues during the 1998 terrorist bombings of embassies in Tanzania and Kenya."

From The New Team (NY Times)

A Window Into Obama’s Foreign Policy
Susan Rice as Head of Foreign Policy Team Augurs Bold Pragmatism

"Over the past year and a half, Rice has become increasingly close to Obama, owing in large part to their mutual frustration with conventional foreign-policy thinking. Unlike many seasoned foreign-policy hands, Rice’s focuses less on traditional state-to-state relationships and more on transnational threats, challenges and opportunities — befitting the emphasis of a new generation of global strategists. With Rice at the helm, former colleagues said, an Obama foreign policy would likely be bold but not dogmatic."

From The Washington Independent

My girl on the issues discussed in the debates - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x204598

Each person I've listed would do a tremendous job as Secretary of State, but Susan has got the education, the skills, the experience and a certain streetwise je ne sais quois that none of the others can TOUCH! :)

You know, I kind of like it! Wonder if she'd bite??

Makes much more sense than Hillary for SoS.

The Clintons were so regularly, daily, habitually and irrationally persecuted by the Republicans that there is virtually no area in which she can claim to be disinterested and impartial about persecuting them in return.

AG is the one thing Hillary can't be. And shouldn't be.

There are some legal issues where I think her expertise and experience would be fantastic.

I'm not saying I'm completely convinced with her being AG either. But what I am saying is that her being AG makes much more sense than her being SoS.

Except for being persecuted by prosecutors.

She does, however, carry with her the excellent Clinton prestige in foreign affairs.

we want the Obama administration to persecute anyone.

I really don't see the need to gut the Democratic majority in the Senate to fill out Obama's administration. We've already lost two, one of which has been there for decades. Let's leave the remaining ones there, shall we? We're already getting a bunch of newbies in this term anyway.


She's a UNITED STATES SENATOR! That's a hell of a job (and accomplishment) in and of itself and one she seems to be pretty good at.

How about Feingold for Majority Leader and Clinton for Majority Whip?

The majority, though "plumper" than it was a month ago, could always be even plumper. And she could do more work on the issues close to her heart there.

In fact, I'd be happy with her doing just about anything she wanted to do. I have that much faith and confidence in her. But I do think that her PARTICULAR skills and experience could be put to better use than her being SoS. That's why I'm chomping at the bit for Dr. Rice to get the SoS job. She would be FANTASTIC.

Although I think Richardson would do a good job in that regard as well.

Wes Clark as Nat'l Security Advisor.


RFK Jr. as head of the Justice Department, maybe. That would scare the shit out of wrongdoers.

Mike Papantonio as head of the EPA.


:rofl:


Entire battalions of corporate lawyers would shit themselves!

You're obviously a big Air America fan! I had to Google those two names. I've never heard the name Mike Papantonio until your post! :) And I'm obviously not nearly as familiar with the work of RFK Jr. as I need to be. But then, I've been out of the States for a while. Probably far too long....

You should listen to their free podcast. You can get it from iTunes, it's called "Ring of Fire". I download it every week and listen to it on my iPod.

Along with Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann. :-)


And RFK Jr is, of course, a Kennedy, so he's up to his eyeballs in liberal politics and public service as well as being a lawyer.

Do you believe that's his style?

Obama hasn't said anything. Andrea Mitchell did. The media is playing a guessing game and Susan Rice may not be on the Media's list. The "media told me so" I take with a grain of salt when no one will go the record. Look how well the media did on forecasting McCains VP.

Whereas Clinton, Kerry, and Richardson are known names with known positions which poises them for instantly favorable reactions from the rest of the world. Your choice would require everyone to stop cheering Obama in order to "wait and see" about this basic stranger.

Does this seem to be Obama's style to you?

Obama makes his own choices - does he seem to need the cheering endorsement from the crowds before he acts?

Your choice would require everyone to stop cheering Obama in order to "wait and see" about this basic stranger.

And it kind of begs the question anyway, is it better to be unknown or to be known and widely unliked?

if he was President.

i think Kerry would be very happy with Susan Rice.

it would only humiliate others if he picked someone who was not qualified.

It clearly will not humiliate Kerry - who has denied speaking to anyone on any position. He did say that there is some likelihood that he will head SFRC. This is something that brings a part of his life full circle - this is the committee he testified before - Senator Pell complimented his statement and said he hoped that he would be in the Senate in the future. When Kerry became Senator, asked to list three committees he was most interested in responded STRC,SFRC,SFRC. Pell was then chair - and he took Kerry over other new Senators.

I don't think it will humiliate Clinton. She has not said she wants it. She may actually want to be an independent voice - or she may feel that having that position would prevent Bill Clinton from doing many things he does.

I don't know as much about Richardson - and haven't forgiven him for the NM 2004 election or the job he did at the Department of Energy.

got the inside scoop from Obama. I haven't heard anything from him directly so how does he humiliate anyone besides being unable to take all 3 of the media's hyped picks.

He didn't attempt to be secret about it. So at least two will be declared not good enough for the job.

No one will be declared "not good enough" - just as everyone can't be President.

No he hasn't spoken to the "transition team". He has spoken to Obama. You are right -- no one will be "declared" not good enough. It is just that is what everyone will think. And the three of them know that.

in a foreign policy position during the "evil" Clinton administration.

it basically means those who have higher standards in regards to politicians representing people above economic interests of multi-national corporations and the wealthy, are being "pure", unreasonable.... lol.

Unfortunately, like most DLCers, they believe, "... that economic growth generated in the private sector is the prerequisite for opportunity, and that government's role is to promote growth and to equip Americans with the tools they need to prosper in the New Economy." Sounds great, but there are implicaions of much of this theory... that we all must allow government to feed the beast with our tax money in order to prosper.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775

Well, since they have taken on this strategy, this country has been going down hill, because our jobs, due to decisions of the private sector, are leaving this country on to be filled by folks who work for almost slave-like wages, which means barely nothing.

When one adopts this philosophy, one adopts Reagan's Trickle Down Economics which is antithetical to Progressives who believe the well being of average Americans does not nor should it be synonymous with the decisions of a bunch of what I consider to be "Robber Barons", but should be determined by the will of the People who vote for change.

Economic interests al too often strangle a Democracy.

Example: my vote means far less than Bill Gates vote. A corporation gets to lobby with tons of cash and connections, while I a person who votes, has no other influence besides my vote. Our forefathers believed in equality and that we should strive for an equality. Our votes should be all equal and have as much influence on a President elect as any one else. Unfortunately many in the DLC also believe a corporation is a "person", which allows that corporation to use it's money and power as part of their, "Freedom of Speech". When this happens, their is a powerful interest that will continuosly take precedent over the majority's interests.

People have valid reasons... but then again, if you disagree with their reasons you can still hold onto that notion of them, including myself of being "purist" in order to simplify, deligitimize and then disregard out of hand.

There are many other reasons, for everyone has their own, but for me it's one of many others.

Here's one more:

"...avoid the L word. Obama opposes gay marriage; talks about tax cuts, God and veterans' benefits; and is spending money to try to remain competitive in traditionally Republican states such as Virginia, North Carolina and even West Virginia, where Hillary Clinton trounced him earlier this year. "I think he will govern a little right of center," says Harold Ford Jr., the former Tennessee congressman and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council..."

- Al From

Anyone who believes people do not have an ideology is being disengenous. I'm a liberal and proud to be one. I will not run from being one or calling myself one just because a center right ideologue dislikes my political point of view. There is nothing wrong with being a liberal... many of our forefathers were liberal. It's bad enough that we get slammed by the GOP and right wing ad nauseum for being who we are, it's much worse when it comes from those who claim to be a part of your political party. This nation is not center-right... WALL STREET IS!

Thanks for all the links on her - she was a great surrogate in 2004 and 2008 on foreign policy.

I think Kerry would be fantastic in either SoS or Chair of the SFRC and a senior member on 3 other committees. Many Obama proposals were derived from his - and he would be a great person pushing the legislation needed to make them real.

Perhaps that would explain the Pres run in 2004 :)

He would certainly be a fantastic SoS, but I think your suggestions about him chairing Senate committees may be something that he may genuinely be uninterested in doing. I just get the feeling that he's looking for something... else. Outside of the Senate.

excellent President for the times - he was also proven right on nearly everything he said. I think he is much more reconciled to being a great Senator than HRC is. He is also far better positioned. Not to say he is not ambitious, but service to his country has always been his driving force. If it weren't he wouldn't have been a prominent person calling for the end of the Vietnam war, investigated the ilegal arming of the Contras - when many wanted them aided, and ignored Party big wigs and continued to investigate BCCI. Kerry is unique - imagine any other politician now out there who would have done this. (Kerry might have been President had he , like so many others avoided Vietnam - or even had he not protested when he returned and used his talents and connections to enter politics earlier.)

He was very excited about the progressive legislation that could be possible with a Democratic majority and a President Obama. He was very obviously involved and interested in every 2008 appearance I saw. He has chaired the Small Business Committee and is very good doing it. (Watch this speech on economics given last month - http://www.jkmediasource.org/node/163 Some of the Massachusetts people in the JK group have said he has never looked happier. I saw a rally in MA on the Monday before the election - and he was great - very happy and energized.

He has spoken of teh 109th Congress (2005-2006) as being the most dysfunctional he has ever seen. His energy and excitement remind me of how happy and excited Kennedy was in the last week of the 2004 campaign thinking about a Senate with Kerry as President.

So do you think that one of the committees you mentioned that Kerry would be interested in chairing would be an economic one?? I would be very surprised at that, given his long-term (and well known) interest in foreign policy and military experience.

He is obviously a man of many talents.

I think that he would clearly head the Foreign relations Committee - and I would hope that he would do the hearings needed. But Small Business, which he has headed and would likely still be on, Finance, where I think he is "4 (out of 11 Democrats) and Commerce (where the current chair will likely opt to chair Appropriations where Byrd gave up his chair) all have some impact on the economy.

Obama pretty much took the legislation Kerry wrote for the Small Business Stimulation that he introduced in September. The point of mentioning the economics speech was that it showed the range of issues that Kerry is involved with. He could be part of solving all of them in the Senate.

I presume she speaks at least one of the recognized UN languages (English, Spanish or French etc.) but to be honest, I have no idea what her non-English language ability is.

If anyone knows, I'd be happy to have the info myself.

But they do have web sites that could provide you with the information that you're looking for. I would be shocked if Dr. Rice didn't have a bio page or at the very least something on Wikipedia.

No point; just conversation.

I guess that means we're done with this "conversation."

I found a page in which she gives advice to young people and advocates learning multiple languages. I'm going to guess that she's bilingual or multi-lingual, but I couldn't say.

HOWEVER, going through all of those biographies, that woman impresses the living daylights out of me, and I would enormously excited to see her, or someone of her caliber, to serve as SoS.

Her credentials are quite comparable to Albright's. She has a PhD in International Relations from Oxford, and has been an Assistant Secretary of State. AND she's currently Obama's foreign policy adviser.

To say that she'll have a role in his administration is probably a drastic understatement.

However, I have no doubt that it will freak out white Americans to see him put two bright, talented African-American women in positions of power so quickly (Jarrett is already in place). They won't even notice the 8-10 white men he's already got on his team.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!