I'll never forget what it felt like to wake up on November 3, 2004.
The sadness and disappointment of Senator Kerry losing the presidential election was quickly replaced by feelings of frustration and helplessness. I could not believe the injustice of what happened to voters in Ohio.
Waiting in line for 10 hours to vote? Being turned away because ballots ran out? Not enough voting machines? These were not things that happened in one of the world's oldest democracies.
These were stories from a corrupt country, far away, where elections were regularly fixed and voting was just a technicality.
This post is part of PFAW Action Fund's sponsorship of OpenLeft in a series of posts to highlight young progressive candidates running for office in this year's election. -Adam
The 2000 recount calamity in Florida and the 2004 voting-rights debacle in Ohio remind us just how vital the Secretary of State really is. After Citizens United and the flurry of corporate advertisements and challenges to campaign disclosure laws, the importance of the Secretary of State position has only increased in magnitude.
That’s why the People For the American Way Action Fund is endorsing two young and prominent progressives for Secretary of State in 2010: Jocelyn Benson of Michigan and Ben Nesselhuf of South Dakota.
The People For the American Way Action Fund is endorsing young progressive candidates across the country who are leading the battles to further equality, good government, and economic justice. These young candidates are just at the beginning of their careers in public service, and the PFAW Action Fund is working to help them make a difference in today and tomorrow’s fights for progressive public policy and ideas.
The upcoming Secretary of State elections highlight the rise in right-wing attacks on voting rights and transparency in politics. Conservatives have long tried to undermine the right to vote through “vote caging” schemes, photo ID laws, and attacks on grassroots efforts to register young and minority voters.
There's no question that Clinton's views on Iraq are tilted more towards hawkishness than many of us would like, but I've noted before that the criteria I'm going to use to evaluate her performance is Israel. My sense of the conflict is that, though there are many obstacles to peace, domestic US politics in the form of AIPAC has always been the elephant in the room. There are signs the group itself is moderating, the political environment has become much more favorable for diplomatic work and the Clinton's have the credibility and gravitas to work on a two state solution without worrying about upsetting right-wing Jews.
Clinton believed in Presidential destiny, and not content to just be a Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton can certainly translate this desire 'go big' into another realm by solving the dominant problem in the Middle East. I hope she does.
If Clinton is considered to be Secretary of State, it's going to validate those who argued that there really was not much daylight between the two of them in the primary. She's a relatively hawkish Democrat whose policy decisions under the Bush administration were not good, and they tended to disagree on the role of diplomacy, but their voting records on Iraq were identical. That said, under a Democratic administration, both Clinton and her husband have the ability and credibility to work on the Israeli government and push it towards peace. I'm not up to date on Israeli politics so I don't know how possible this is, but domestically Americans are ready. While I often describe AIPAC as a problematic organization, what its rival J Street has really done is to broaden and diversify what it means to be pro-Israel.
President-elect Barack Obama has interviewed primary election rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson for secretary of state, according to Democratic officials who revealed his secret meetings with both as he weighed the decision on folding former foes into his new administration. Obama met with Richardson late Friday afternoon, a day after conferring one-on-one with Clinton at his Chicago office, said several Democratic officials.
Richardson has already proven his diplomatic mettle in places like Sudan, North Korea and Iraq. Also, it would be great to have a proponent of No Residual Forces in Iraq so high up on the power ladder. So, should Clinton not accept, I think Richardson would be a very good choice.
As far as Clinton goes, while I'm sure she would do a fine job, and while I'm sure some would disagree, right now I would rather return to the question of whether being Secretary of State would help her chances of becoming President in 2016. Yesterday, I wrote that it would, as long as the Obama administration is popular. In response to my assertion, Nate Silver offers "a qualified no," which I will discuss in the extended entry.
Lots of people are chattering about the possibility of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.
There's talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.
Clemons points out that this would be the same move as Bush's boxing in of rival Colin Powell in 2001, to keep Clinton from presenting a competitive threat to Obama in 2012 should Obama stumble.
Tea leaves aside, one possible choice for SoS left off the table is Wes Clark. Clark is well respected by both Rahm Emanuel and John Podesta, and obviously has the skills and aptitude for diplomacy and repairing American relations. He would also bring a much needed ace into the cabinet who could handle possible pushback from the military against Obama's command.
It's a thought. Put your transition porn gossip or speculations below.
It's time for a look at the Cabinet in the upcoming Obama administration. First up - Secretary of State, the point person - in repairing our alliances, in building on the goodwill that is already flowing in from around the world.
There are a number of excellent options - some who served in the Clinton Administration - some outsiders - and even a couple of Obamicans. For convenience, I've taken the list from a betting site (yes, it is in the order of the oddsmakers' favorite):
Richard Holbrooke
Anthony Lake
Richard Lugar
Bill Richardson
Chuck Hagel
John Kerry
Daniel Shapiro
Daniel Kurtzer
George Mitchell
Eric Lynn
Dennis Ross
Susan Rice
James Steinberg
Mara Rudman
Bill Clinton
Colin Powell
Hillary Clinton
I evaluate each option as best I can on the flip. (I had to research the credentials of a few.) I trust others will add more data. (And if nobody notices diaries here, I'll probably also post on the great Orange blog too.)
STATE BLOGS
