Yes, Kerry is Wrong for Scrty of State
by Manic Lawyer, Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:19:55 AM EST
In response to my discussion of how Senator John Kerry would inevitably embarrass and demoralize an Obama Administration if Kerry were nominated for secretary of state, one commenter defended Kerry and said, "what's your beef?"
(The reader ignored my reminder to readers that Larry Summers, being considered for Treasury Secretary, was driven out of the presidency of Harvard University in 2005 after he said that women are inherently less intelligent and capable than men in math and science. Won't they ask him if he still believes that during his confirmation hearings? If he's too much of a sexist to be presidency of Harvard University, then why would we want to make him Secretary of the Treasury.)
As for my beef with any John Kerry's nomination for state, it's that Senator Kerry (1) chose John Edwards as his vice presidential running mate and then Edwards rolled over in his debate with Cheney, and Edwards later turned out to be a lying, narcissistic stuffed shirt; (2) Kerry's 2004 campaign was disorganized and aimless, and he was personally listless as a candidate, unable to explain his vote for the IWR in the context of his opposition to the war; but, above all, his inept joke about the troops in Iraq convinced him and everyone else that he should not be the Democratic standard bearer in 2008.
That argument is over, but the question now is whether having Kerry on television every night, perhaps more than Obama himself, is the best public relations move for this new administration. It's NOT.
If nominated for such a high-profile position, Kerry will bumble in terms of developing plans to end the war in Iraq and fight or end the war in Afghanistan; Kerry will have to be entrusted with covert operations that will embarrass Obama when their ineptitude becomes apparent, and Kerry will constantly say inept or incomprehensible things that Obama and his spokespeople will then have to explain to the public in English.
Obama would be better off appointing himself secretary of state than appointing Kerry.
Moreover, Bill Richardson has far more experience, is a much better public speaker, has actually negotiated with foreign countries on behalf of the United States, and comes from a state and a demographic group that is not a "gimme" in 2012.
The only reason to nominate Kerry over Susan Rice or Bill Richardson is that Kerry is a white man. In light of his disadvantages, the fact that he is a white man is not a good enough reason.
Everyone acknowledges that Colin Powell has more experience, is a better speaker, knows the military, is respected inside and outside of the military, would please more conservative and independent voters, and is loyal to a fault. He effectively switched parties to support Barack Obama's candidacy.
That puts even Colin Powell head and shoulders above John Kerry.
So, let's start this administration correctly, by choosing good communicators and policy executers over poor ones for critical public roles representing the new administration.