RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "With opposition to Susan Rice mounting daily, Michael Tomasky proposes six alternative nominees for the top post at Foggy Bottom. Head of the list? The winner of the 2000 election."

Former Vice President, Al Gore. (photo: Mario Anzuoni)
Former Vice President, Al Gore. (photo: Mario Anzuoni)


Secretary of State Al Gore?

By Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast

29 November 12

 

With opposition to Susan Rice mounting daily, Michael Tomasky proposes six alternative nominees for the top post at Foggy Bottom. Head of the list? The winner of the 2000 election.

hings maybe aren't looking so great for Susan Rice. The throw-down yesterday by Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins, who extended the Republican case against Rice back to the Clinton years, is one of those Washington smoke signals, and it's not a positive one. Let me therefore set aside for a day the question of the merits of Rice and raise another one: Who would make for some credible, interesting, outside-the-box choices to run Foggy Bottom? There are ample non-Rice options that would provide the nation with a strong chief diplomat and would piss off the wingnuts in the bargain. Here are half a dozen.

1. Al Gore. I first heard this suggestion from my friend David Greenberg, the historian who writes for Slate, and I though, nahhh. But it grew on me pretty fast. Tell me why not. He'd be great. He's known around the world. He's respected around the world, about 90 percent of which surely wishes he'd been the president instead of the guy he beat. I'm not saying he'd change the world; no one can do that. But he'd get a hearing everywhere. He knows a huge number of world leaders, and he knows the issues cold. He could dive right into the pool's deepest end, in the Middle East, on Iran, you name it.

What about his climate-change crusade, you wonder? Far from having to drop his signature issue, Gore could use his new position to push it with even greater vigor in a global context. Gore, and probably Gore alone, would be capable of elevating the climate change issue to the position it deserves on the national and global stage.

What we don't know that much about is the Gore-Obama relationship. In 2007 and 2008, Gore clearly tilted toward Obama (Gore's mere refusal to endorse Hillary Clinton over Obama indicated as much). Gore didn't endorse Obama until right after he'd secured the nomination, but the two were said to have talked regularly. That's good enough.

Finally: Man, would I love to see the Republicans try to swat down a Gore nomination. How? They'd poke around in his finances, remind America that he's now divorced. But unless there were some kind of smoking gun on the former point, no one would care. They could not really block Gore; too much stature, too obviously qualified. Can you imagine? John McCain would grind his teeth, assuming those still are his teeth, down to dust. That would be awesome to watch.

2. Jon Huntsman. A Republican reviled by the wingnuts, Huntsman has already served the anti-Christ in a diplomatic capacity, as his ambassador to China. He seems to have done an acceptable job in that posting, so why not just continue and augment the relationship? He clearly likes Obama pretty well and obviously (between the lines) was cheering for his reelection over a man he clearly dislikes.

It's hard to see Huntsman having confirmation problems. There would be a number of no votes and a lot of kvetching, but he couldn't be blocked. He might even do a good job, too. And putting him at State would clear out of Hillary's way in 2016 the GOP's leading sane candidate.

3. Richard Lugar. Yes, he's a pretty conservative Republican. But to mad-dog conservatives, he's a sell out, an Obama apologist, a treacherous Decembrist. He was defeated, as you'll recall, by a primary opponent who ran to his right, who defeated him on the basis of just such accusations. Those were absurdly exaggerated, but in fact, on a mere personal level, he was one of Obama's best buddies while Obama was in the Senate. So the president likes and presumably trusts him.

True, this one wouldn't go down so well with liberals. But hey, the president's the boss. If Lugar doesn't listen to his boss, his boss can just fire him. But I doubt Lugar would do that. He's Midwestern nice. He is rather old, though. Eighty. Travel is probably too grueling.

4. Colin Powell. Yet another Republican turncoat, Powell obviously endorsed Obama twice. And, uh, yeah, he held the job once before. Maybe this time he could tell the truth instead of make up fairy tales and undo the one black spot on his otherwise praiseworthy escutcheon.

Liberals would not like this by and large, so Powell would have to address that infamous U.N. briefing at any confirmation hearings. But all he'd have to do is find the right words with which to throw the blame back on Dick Cheney, and much (not all, but much) would be forgiven from the left. The right would go nuts.

5. Dianne Feinstein. OK, nothing about this pick would make Republicans go beserk. They kind of like her, at least on foreign-policy questions, on which she's awfully hawkish. She has been way too pro-Israel to be the honest broker in the Middle East the United States needs, but maybe that could work to her advantage-because the Israelis trust her, she could tell them things others can't and they'd listen.

6. Jim Webb. Also not a choice to anger Republicans at all, but possibly an interesting thought. Actually, maybe Webb makes more sense for the Pentagon, no? The more that I think about that, it makes all kinds of sense. Maybe the Army people wouldn't want a Navy man calling the shots, I don't know. But Webb to the Pentagon seems like a decent idea to me.

There you have it. I'm sure there are others (but no, not Bill Clinton-an ex-president holding a lower office is just a little too odd). Unsupportable as these attacks on Rice are, they may reach a point (and maybe very soon) where the president has to conclude that he's going to spend his political capital elsewhere. I'm not yet saying he should or shouldn't conclude that. But if he does, he has other places to turn.


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+167 # jjj 2012-11-29 12:36
Wouldn't Al Gore be a yummy choice?! Yup he gets my vote, and not just because the ultracons would bark themselves into a frenzy. He is an excellent candidate for the job.
 
 
-100 # Joeconserve 2012-11-29 13:59
Yuk!!!
 
 
+47 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 18:05
Coming from you, that's a solid endorsement. The more you hate the idea the better it sounds.
 
 
-23 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-29 19:20
Iagree on Foreign Relations alone he is not so loveable too soft and kind type. I agree with Mrs Clinton here is the right man:- John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts, the tenth most senior United States Senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2004 presidential election, but lost to then President George W. Bush.
 
 
+31 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 21:45
And he's also a way to open up a Senate seat for repugs to try filling with Scott Brown. Repugs will try anything to grab any little bit more power they can have.
 
 
+27 # bmiluski 2012-11-30 09:37
That's one of the main reasons they're blocking Rice. They want Kerry to get the job and then vacate senate seat so they can fill.
 
 
+18 # Billy Bob 2012-11-30 09:47
I think it's the entire reason - well, that and to clog progress so the President has less time to get anything accomplished.
 
 
+11 # hilchris 2012-11-30 17:10
I believe you're absolutely right about Kerry......and Rice.......they (Repubs) DEFINITELY want to vacate a senate seat!! To beat the Repubs you (we) have to think like the Repubs and I believe you're right on!!! If I were Obama my choice would be hands down GORE!!
 
 
+33 # lourdmar 2012-11-30 01:10
We musn't lose a Senator like Kerry to make room for a Scott invasion - he ran dirty against Elizabeth Warren and it's a move that would be a gift for the 3 musketeers, McCain & Co. A big mistake to play into their game. Gore would be sensational and would stomp the GOP.
 
 
+15 # reiverpacific 2012-11-30 12:43
Quoting robcarter.vn:
Iagree on Foreign Relations alone he is not so loveable too soft and kind type. I agree with Mrs Clinton here is the right man:- John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts, the tenth most senior United States Senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2004 presidential election, but lost to then President George W. Bush.

"Lost"?????
Think again. Can you say "Ken Blackwell"?
 
 
+60 # Barbara K 2012-11-29 15:35
jjj: Totally agree, especially about the barking part. lol. Al Gore has been all over the world, and I think he would be a great choice. I hope they don't pull any dems from the Senate, they are sorely needed in the Senate.
 
 
+7 # SouthBrun 2012-11-30 10:26
Not only barking, but howling, snapping, and tail chasing to boot.
 
 
0 # Barbara K 2012-12-04 07:14
SouthBrun: LOL! Love it!

And it is so true.
 
 
+30 # ABen 2012-11-29 16:33
Yes, Gore would be an excellent candidate, but I doubt that he is interested. Huntsman would also be an excellent candidate, but his party would excoriate him if he took the position.
 
 
+6 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-29 19:09
I thought Hillary said she would resign to give it to John Kerry? Anyhow GOP swearv they will refuse any Obamar nominee, does that mean they refuse Hillary's resignation they want her doing that great job she does some more to bugger Republican plans so very well. Sure another 4 years of her cunning USA may get out of their shipoo. Anyhow John Kerry or Hillary or al Gore sound all good to me. Dare the GOP refuse any of those as nominated by Obi-won again, after each of those 3 have all at some time appeased GOP and tea-parties wishes on some finiky point or other.
 
 
+7 # wrknight 2012-11-30 08:49
Quoting ABen:
Huntsman would also be an excellent candidate, but his party would excoriate him if he took the position.


So?

It seems to me that's their loss, not ours.
 
 
-31 # joedeane 2012-11-29 19:07
Rice is a hyocritical sleaze happy face. She is taylor made for the neo con in disguise Mr. Smooth forked tongue "Barry".
 
 
+16 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 21:47
You should talk it out with robteagle. He hates President Obama for the exact opposite reason as you. Do you think that means anything at all?
 
 
+3 # bigkahuna671 2012-12-01 10:59
Yeah, Billy Bob, I think it means righties are schizoid and struggle to know which point of view they're supporting that particular day...kind of like Romney and his stand(s) on all the issues, can't have too many positions on any issue now, can we?
 
 
+6 # RLF 2012-11-30 07:20
Kind of like Holder, who only prosecutes whistle blowers and not torturers.
 
 
+5 # bmiluski 2012-11-30 09:39
Wow, how typically neo-con of you. Throwing mud without any basis.
 
 
+37 # Firefox11 2012-11-29 19:30
Totally agree. And wouldn't it be poetic justice for the man who actually won the 2000 election to be back in a significant position in government.
 
 
-11 # FDRva 2012-11-30 07:00
Nope. The Gay/Green agenda preferred by top party fundraisers gets any Democrat less Wall Street-bankroll ed & lighter-skinned than Barry Obama buried in a national election.

Unfortunate as it may sound, our nation's first elected 'president of color' was likely only reelected because of his handlers effective use of 'wedge issues,' irrelevant to the nation's governance.

Forget the artificial 'fiscal cliff' stuff--Congress could repeal its disastrous automatic effects tomorrow--just like they enacted them.

This democrat is much more worried about White House abuse of war powers.
 
 
+10 # bmiluski 2012-11-30 09:41
The trickle-down economy policy that romney/ryan supported (even though it caused 2 recessions)was a huge factor in their loss.
 
 
+4 # bigkahuna671 2012-12-01 13:44
"'Wedge issues' irrelevant to the nation's governance? You've got to be kidding. Let's see, wedge issues are issues used to divide the people...hmmm, could that be something like abortion? Or perhaps it could be something like immigration? Or perhaps global warming? Or perhaps a myriad of other wedges meant to be driven into the American psyche so that we have brother fighting brother and neighbor fighting neighbor? If anyone uses wedge issues in political races, it's the GOP and Karl Rove, who used it to win in Texas when Dubya ran for gov. there and during both of his Presidential runs. Since then, it's become the modus operandi of any GOP candidate with an axe to grind and no real background qualifying him/her for election. Just get those middle class folks fighting among themselves and we don't have to tell the truth or actually take a position on anything. Yep, those darned 'wedge issues' that the lefties use all the time. Pardon me while I lose myself in gagging because I'm laughing so hard!!!
 
 
-2 # RLF 2012-11-30 07:23
How about Noam Chomsky...since we're dreaming.
 
 
+23 # gnstultz 2012-11-29 12:48
Why not Bill Clinton?
 
 
+7 # Depressionborn 2012-11-29 13:31
Rice will get it. She is very well connected; already chosen I think
 
 
+20 # Smiley 2012-11-29 15:34
She's heavily invested in the XL pipe line and "what the oil Companies want ......."
 
 
-9 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-29 19:12
He has a betterv paid ob with Gates and Buffet, and his wife still owes $80k of her 2008 $25mn campaign debts, another 1 to 4 years and her tips would clear that in a day.
 
 
-5 # RLF 2012-11-30 07:22
Clinton is a dick...He started this Democrat that acts like a Republican to win elections...thi ng.
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2012-11-30 09:42
I'm sorry, I thought President Clinton's first name is William not Richard.
 
 
-3 # Billy Bob 2012-11-30 09:49
Before that, we had the Democrat who acts like a Democrat to lose elections thing.
 
 
-2 # FDRva 2012-12-03 02:47
President Obama has perfected that Wall Street Democrat thing--that FDR denounced as 'economic royalism'

Barack Obama chose W. Bush's banker bailouts over FDR's Glass-Steagall firewall--when he had the support to do either.

And you still support his treachery BECAUSE...?
 
 
+5 # wrknight 2012-11-30 08:51
Quoting gnstultz:
Why not Bill Clinton?


Bill has served his country. Give him a break.
 
 
0 # vitobonespur 2012-11-30 16:21
Bill Clinton would be great except he couldn't hold the office. It would put him in line for the Presidency, which, as we all know, would be unconstitutiona l.

Additionally, I hope this author wrote this with tongue planted firmly in cheek:

Colin Powell? "Maybe this time he could tell the truth instead of make up fairy tales..." Sorry, he lost my trust when he lied to get this country into an illegal, unnecessary war.

Jon Huntsman? "He might even do a good job, too." Then by all means -- nominate this guy! Who cares what sort of Secretary of State he would make, just as long as it pisses off the Republicans.

Please... someone please tell me this Michael Tomasky fellow is just having a good time, spouting "beer talk."
 
 
+53 # xkenx 2012-11-29 12:58
Add to the list probably the most qualified of all, General Wesley Clark. Vietnam War hero, Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Dem. presidential candidate. When Clark was NATO commander, he had vast diplomatic responsibilitie s while conducting the Balkans campaign. Knows the military inside out, and world affairs inside out. Gave testimony to Congress prior to Iraq war arguing for diplomacy, with war only as a last resort. FOB and Hillary.
 
 
+5 # Firefox11 2012-11-29 19:32
Not a good idea. Putting a military man in a civilian job; remember Colin Powell as Secretary of State under Bush 2 who simply obeyed the chain of command and lied for his boss, giving his blessing for the illegal invasion of Iraq.
 
 
+3 # xkenx 2012-11-30 08:49
Wes Clark is a patriot first, military man 2nd. Argued against Iraq War when it was unpopular to do so. Integrity personified.
 
 
+2 # bingers 2012-11-30 14:11
Quoting Firefox11:
Not a good idea. Putting a military man in a civilian job; remember Colin Powell as Secretary of State under Bush 2 who simply obeyed the chain of command and lied for his boss, giving his blessing for the illegal invasion of Iraq.


Yeah, but Powell was the guy in charge of covering up the My Lai massacre and was quite overrated as both a General and as a diplomat. Just the opposite of Clark whose service was exemplary and carried out as a statesman.
 
 
+6 # bigkahuna671 2012-11-29 22:20
Why shouldn't Clark replace Leon Panetta? Gen. Clark has the bona fides to carry out the job. Warren Buffett to replace Geithner, Gore at State...what a reinforced Cabinet that would be. And, I know this is just a dream, what if Pres. Obama appointed Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court as happened with Taft? I can just imagine all the tight jaws in the right-wing. AWESOME!!!
 
 
+51 # LeeBlack 2012-11-29 13:02
I like this list, I hope the President has the same list.
 
 
+41 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-11-29 13:07
Susan Collins, the strained brain from Maine, can barely address an issue in the national media without the telltale clink of cognitive marbles rolling around in her head. TFS if she doesn't like Obama's choice. Obama should get whom he wants — because he's going to take the blame for any screw-ups his choice will make.
 
 
+8 # FDRva 2012-11-30 07:12
While I agree with you in principle as to the President's prerogative...

Susan Rice aka Dick Cheney-in-a-dre ss is a bridge too far.

'Endless war' in the name of 'democracy?'

No Thanks.

If that agenda were appropriate Pres. McCain would be entering his second term.
 
 
+1 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-11-30 10:24
If your characterizatio n of Susan Rice were accurate, John McCain would love Susan Rice.
 
 
+18 # paulmtnview 2012-11-29 13:11
The President should nominate Susan Rice if she is his preference. If not, then Chuch Hagel should be added to Tomasky's list.
 
 
0 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-29 19:15
Who said that's Obi's choice the name was let slip as a pre-choice fop to show how bull-toss Republicans vindictive voices can be so later their own constituants tell them to eat cake anbd pipe down.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-11-30 14:14
Quoting paulmtnview:
The President should nominate Susan Rice if she is his preference. If not, then Chuch Hagel should be added to Tomasky's list.



Chuck Hagel belongs in prison for election fraud when the voting machines his company owned turned his 30 points down in the polls into victory.
 
 
+57 # reiverpacific 2012-11-29 13:14
Denis Kucinich!!!!
 
 
+18 # MidwestDick 2012-11-29 15:22
Yes! Talk about the wingnuts having a cow. Also AIPAC would have a spit hemorrhage. The bad guys could spend all their free time taking pot-shots at St. Dennis, while BHO could sneak through a few dozen judges and some lesser SEC, and HUD appointees.
He'd never get the post, but he could raise enough dough from folks who love him to go back to Congress where they need a real ethical and spiritual exemplar to make them feel like the moral slackers they are.
 
 
+28 # NAVYVET 2012-11-29 15:47
No, not State! Dennis for Labor or anything having to do with human rights!

AND THEN--FOR PRESIDENT.
 
 
+14 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 18:07
Human rights is what the state department needs to think about a bit more.
 
 
+4 # MidwestDick 2012-11-30 08:55
State is a major human rights player.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-11-30 09:51
At least it can be.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-11-30 14:15
Quoting NAVYVET:
No, not State! Dennis for Labor or anything having to do with human rights!

AND THEN--FOR PRESIDENT.



Much better idea!
 
 
+11 # Firefox11 2012-11-29 19:33
Wow. Interesting idea; however, Kucinich is a peace candidate and would not support all the drone strikes and illegal wars the US is involved in.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-11-30 14:15
Quoting reiverpacific:
Denis Kucinich!!!!



Kucinich is a fantastic guy, but I can't see him as S of S.
 
 
+30 # HerbR 2012-11-29 13:19
As both FDR and HST famously said, "Make me do it !"
 
 
+36 # allie 2012-11-29 13:33
Clinton or Gore sounds just dandy! Would love to see either one and then see the ugly republicans frothing at the bit and kicking themselves for the trumped up charges against Rice.
 
 
+13 # NAVYVET 2012-11-29 15:48
Not all charges are trumped up. The Benghazi ones are, but Rice is too cozy with Big Oil/Gas/Pipelin es for me.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 18:07
But no one's complaining about that.
 
 
+1 # Walhalla 2012-11-29 13:34
Huntsman, Al Gore, Colin Powell in that order.........
 
 
+4 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2012-11-29 13:42
I like Al gore. Yet, he has a little background problem. Lots of people get divorced, Gore was no exception. Yet, the issue of his "taking a few liberties" in a massage parlor. Sure to "come" up.
 
 
+48 # natalierosen 2012-11-29 13:46
Most all of those choices are fine by me but what I TOTALLY do NOT want is to take ANYONE out of Congress so a RepuGlicRAT can slide in. President (yes I did say president because he DID win) Al Gore to me sounds PERFECT!
 
 
-28 # trini-boy 2012-11-29 13:47
I respect Al Gore a great deal! However, foreign policy is NOT Mr. gore's political area of expertise! Mr. gore is known alnost exclusively for his domestic policy accomplishments and, as such, is NOT a suitable chpice to be the next Secretary of State! This NOT any way meant to demean or castigate Mr. Gore's stature as a true American statesman; i5t's, just that he foreign policy is NOT his area of expertise and we have neither the time or the luxury for anyone to be learning on-the-job in these most perilous times!
 
 
+22 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 18:09
You're definitely wrong about that one. Gore knows as much as anybody and is very well connected. He's actually perfect for the job. Trouble is, he's over-qualified to bother taking it.
 
 
-4 # bigkahuna671 2012-12-01 17:20
Can anyone say Condaleeza Rice?
 
 
+39 # Rascalndear 2012-11-29 13:50
Definitely Al Gore... by far the most credible candidate of the lot --- and the only serious environmentalis t in the upper echelons of US politics, something we desperately need.
 
 
-91 # Robt Eagle 2012-11-29 14:01
How about someone with military experience and diplomatic savvy? This list is sure to get us deeper into the failed Obama foreign policies and embolden AlQuaeda to hit us harder than they already have. Oops, you leftists have already forgotten that four Americans died in Benghazi under Obama's watch, haven't you???
 
 
+48 # allie 2012-11-29 14:56
Robt, aren't you tired of beating that drum? I know, I'm tired of hearing it.
 
 
+24 # Glen 2012-11-29 15:54
Robt, haven't YOU already forgotten the thousands of non-combatants killed in the so called war against a dozen names. There have been Americans to die, namely military, also, under both Bush and Obama.

So which military experienced individual could put an end to that?
 
 
+14 # xflowers 2012-11-29 15:57
And nearly 300- died in NYC under Bush's watch.
 
 
+28 # xflowers 2012-11-29 15:58
And nearly 3000 died in NYC under Bush's watch!
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 21:49
Robby forgot that one.
 
 
+7 # ABen 2012-11-29 16:35
As my former students would have said; OMGWBS
 
 
+19 # Working Class 2012-11-29 18:51
Quoting Robt Eagle:
How about someone with military experience and diplomatic savvy? This list is sure to get us deeper into the failed Obama foreign policies and embolden AlQuaeda to hit us harder than they already have. Oops, you leftists have already forgotten that four Americans died in Benghazi under Obama's watch, haven't you???

It would appear that Eagle has already forgotten 9-11, on the Rep's watch. Not to mention a dozen embasy/consulat e attacks during the eight years of "W". That is more than any other President in history and resulted in over 60 deaths, but they weren't all Americans, so they probably don't count in R-land.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 21:51
Actually, you're describing Gore.

Not to reiterate what others have already mentioned, but aren't you forgetting the 4,000 who died on 9/11/2001 IN AMERICA while bush jr. intentionally did nothing to stop it?

Oops, you rightists have already forgotten that this isn't fox news. Here in reality-land facts matter.

Oops!
 
 
+3 # bmiluski 2012-11-30 14:45
Yeah...., you lost your relevence the split second you used the term leftists. Time to grow up.
 
 
+26 # equality4peace 2012-11-29 14:09
Where could we find a better one, and who deserves it more in the field of politics. He is the most known and respected of any American in this country right now. He is also one of the most knowledgable and not beholden to any body but the welfare of all people.
He's our best man!
 
 
+55 # fredboy 2012-11-29 14:31
President Gore would make an excellent Secretary of State. Sorry government corruption blocked his presidency.
 
 
+7 # JSRaleigh 2012-11-29 14:32
Powell was a turncoat long before he became republican or Secretary of State. Nor is the UN speech the only "black spot on his ... escutcheon."
 
 
+4 # NAVYVET 2012-11-29 15:49
I agree with JSRaleigh.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 21:53
Thank you for remembering! He has a list of discredits to his name. His recent "turn to the left" is nothing more than a ploy.
 
 
+13 # giraffee2012 2012-11-29 14:33
YES for Kucinich = not only a good choice but a chance to strengthen the party and bring Denis closer to President Obama ( -- there there have been differences on foreign policies -- they'd have a chance to work out these differences on the world wide front.
 
 
+13 # natalierosen 2012-11-29 14:55
Kucinich although I like him, is not in the president's political milieu. The president would never nominate him as he is too left of center for him.
 
 
+5 # joedeane 2012-11-29 19:09
that is becaus the "center" in the USA is really the extreme right. To the people in the Ameican center, even liberals look like communists,
 
 
+1 # Sharpone 2012-11-29 14:56
Jon Huntsman
 
 
+38 # MainStreetMentor 2012-11-29 15:14
President Gore, (yes, he WAS elected President of the United States), would, indeed, represent the United States well as Secretary of State.
 
 
+15 # lincolnimp 2012-11-29 15:24
I agree that the President should be free to name whoever he wants. If Susan Rice has the stomach to face the lying witch hunters of the right wing and its teapartiers, then she's my choice too. If she doesn't want to play, then I agree that President Gore is perfect. An earlier comment criticized Al Gore's foreign policy credentials...I believe he is probably one of the most internationally credible Americans we have. He is very much admired abroad for his all inclusive program of world wide recognition of the horror of Global Warming. On the other hand, very few countries (if any) have such a vocal and angry opposition to the need for cinservation and "Global Cooling" as my own dear angry conservative and blindered right wing fools in the USA. If President Gore turns it down, then I would vote for Kucinich. His stand against war is unequaled. The problem is, as pointed out earlier, that any loss of a Democrat in the Congress is too harmful to be considered. What I don't want to see is a Republican of any ilk filling such an important slot in President Obama's cabinet.
 
 
-16 # SMoonz 2012-11-29 15:30
Kucinich or Ron Paul.
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 21:54
Ron Paul is too busy trying to profitize Medicare and Medicaid.
 
 
+6 # reiverpacific 2012-11-30 12:52
Quoting SMoonz:
Kucinich or Ron Paul.

Boy, now THERE's a comedy of opposites!
 
 
+20 # unocelestial 2012-11-29 15:34
That would be great. The repubs stating they would be agreeable toward Kerry is just a ploy to get his Senate seat.
 
 
+23 # kate@kseley.jazztel.es 2012-11-29 15:47
Yes, Al Gore would be a brilliant choice as well as a sort of poetic justice. All other choices - including Rice herself - pale in comparison. Hope Obama has read this!
 
 
+6 # NAVYVET 2012-11-29 15:54
If Congresswoman Barbara Lee is in an entirely safe district--I'll go for her! She is knowledgeable on foreign policy issues, smart, honest and humanistic.
 
 
+5 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2012-11-29 16:01
Bill Clinton would be my choice. Loved the world over. He did strip down the Glass Stegal Act in which case after I die I will forgive him for.
 
 
-25 # moafu@yahoo.com 2012-11-29 16:02
Al Gore is so weak of stature on the international scene.
I'm a conservative who is a bit narrow-minded, but I would love to see former House of Rep. Patricia Schroeder as Sec. of State. She has it !
and only 72 yrs. old.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 21:59
Could you be specific about your "weak of stature" comment? And note, we'll check your facts. By the way, what does that even mean? "Weak of stature"?

It sounds a bit like the old Fox news strategy of questioning the "manhood" of anyone who disagrees with the repug party. You wouldn't be attempting to do that would you?
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-11-30 14:22
Quoting Billy Bob:
Could you be specific about your "weak of stature" comment? And note, we'll check your facts. By the way, what does that even mean? "Weak of stature"?

It sounds a bit like the old Fox news strategy of questioning the "manhood" of anyone who disagrees with the repug party. You wouldn't be attempting to do that would you?


The only weakness Gore has shown was his refusal to challenge the election outcome and he probably did so for the same reason Nixon did, to spare the nation the disruption.

(Yes, I know later events Nixon was involved in make that ironic, but he didn't think anyone would know about Watergate before it came out. After that it was the paranoia of a treed fox in defense mode)
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-12-01 00:25
I think people make too much of Gore's power to fight that decision. How can a presidential candidate fight the Supreme Court? Only Congress can do that, or a Constitutional amendment.
 
 
+10 # Glenda 2012-11-29 16:17
Gore would not accept probably. He has his glory and he has his own life and campaign against global warming, but if he would accept, he is my first choice.
 
 
+2 # Inland Jim 2012-11-29 16:25
How about taking a deep breath.

If Merkley-Warren prevail in the filibuster rule pissing match, they'll just nominate and approve Rice. No big deal.
 
 
-4 # dupagedem 2012-11-29 16:45
SoS Gore's first act could be to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline, which will NOT help our oil supply, but WILL pollute the atmosphere worse than it already is.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 22:02
I think you got thumbs down from people who thought you said, "killing the pipeline wouldn't help us, but would further polute."

I think it's a misunderstandin g. I did a double-take (stupid English language!). Your comment could have been read to mean the exact opposite of what I think you really did say.

It's not your fault.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-11-30 14:28
Quoting Billy Bob:
I think you got thumbs down from people who thought you said, "killing the pipeline wouldn't help us, but would further polute."

I think it's a misunderstanding. I did a double-take (stupid English language!). Your comment could have been read to mean the exact opposite of what I think you really did say.

It's not your fault.


He was saying Gore would cause that, lowering our oil supply but causing more pollution. One of the stupidest assertions I've ever heard in my entire life.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-12-01 00:33
Are you sure? Isn't it possible he said:

"SoS Gore's first act could be to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline, which (meaning the pipeline - and NOT Gore's decision) will NOT help our oil supply, but WILL pollute the atmosphere worse than it already is."


The same words with a slight alteration could be a bit more clear:

So Gore's first act could be to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline, since the pipeline will NOT help our oil supply, but WILL pollute the atmosphere worse than it already is.
 
 
+3 # bingers 2012-11-30 14:26
It wQuoting dupagedem:
SoS Gore's first act could be to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline, which will NOT help our oil supply, but WILL pollute the atmosphere worse than it already is.


It would have no effect on our oil supply as it is already committed to China. It very well might destroy the Oglalla water table which suplies almost all the upper midwest water. Tar sands oil is incredibly corrosive and always leaks in short order. If you are for Keystone XL, you are a moron!
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2012-11-30 14:48
Darlin, we have enough oil here. What we don't have are enough refineries.
 
 
+7 # hammermann 2012-11-29 18:01
Wonder if Gore still wants the dirt of politics. Probably- the hunger never leaves one. His AGW advocacy would be great but one big reason Obama might not pick him. Smart, experienced, funny, respected, moral- we couldn't do much better. Collin's hateful BS is shameful- the Repubs are still obsessed w Bork and what they can destroy. Best thing, AL likes my articles!
http://tomhammers.tripod.com/menu.htm#letter
 
 
+2 # Kathymoi 2012-11-29 18:55
All the positions around the president are so important, and we don't get to elect who we want, or even know who the president is going to choose until it's done. More and more,day by day, I am thinking it's time to change that. This is a very deep change that I'm thinking of. I'm thinking that at election time, we vote for a whole group---not just one person, but a group of people who together would do what the president, his cabinet, the secretary of state, and so on do. And each person in the group needs to have a succession plan, so that it's not a bait and switch deal the day after election. I think we need this.
 
 
+7 # tm7devils 2012-11-29 19:00
Anybody but Rice unless she and her husband divested themselves of their Canadian oil holdings. As SOS, she would be responsible for the decision to go ahead (or not) on the pipeline - that would scare me. I KNOW which way Gore would lean...and push.
 
 
+3 # Firefox11 2012-11-29 19:38
Since when does the Sec of State have anything do with piplines in the US?
 
 
+2 # brianf 2012-11-30 01:04
That's what I thought until I heard how the State Department (under Hillary) almost got the XL pipeline fast tracked to approval. It took huge protests to merely postpone it for a few months, and we are still fighting it.
 
 
+1 # Scott Galindez 2012-11-30 01:51
The pipeline starts in Canada and will be owned by a Canadian company., The State department has to approve the deal with the foreign company.
 
 
+8 # ClarkMN 2012-11-29 19:22
How about Bill Richardson? The guy has experience out the wazoo. He was a successful Ambassador to the UN (like Rice), he has also been a successful governor. He has only one skeleton in his closet and that was dealt with years ago (he claimed he was in the Oakland A's farm system when he was only scouted to be). He is Latino, which means that if the Republicans go against him then they can kiss any chance of gaining seats in 2014 goodbye.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-11-29 22:03
I got a crazy idea!

How about Susan Rice?!
 
 
0 # FDRva 2012-11-30 01:39
Richardson is an accomplished figure--unlike Rice-- and is not a neo-con in either his personal or financial relationships.

The next few days should tell us a lot about Pres. Obama.
 
 
+1 # FDRva 2012-11-30 01:48
It is a crazy idea.

Unless you like Dick Cheney's neo-con doctrine of 'endless war.'

And just prefer that a Democratic president take the fall.

Ms Rice is one of the few Cheney Democrats left.
 
 
+1 # FDRva 2012-11-30 02:01
Just in case RSN editors misplaced their political testicles, I will re-state the obvious.

Susan Rice is a Cheney-kind of Democrat--who likes 'endless' wars just so long as those wars appear to be about 'human rights.'

Has Amb. Rice started a war with nuclear-armed Russia yet?
 
 
-3 # WestWinds 2012-11-29 23:46
I don't like any of these choices; warmed over DLC-ers or straight up CONServatives.

And what is this subtle endorsement of Hillary Clinton?

>>It's hard to see Huntsman having confirmation problems. There would be a number of no votes and a lot of kvetching, but he couldn't be blocked. He might even do a good job, too. And putting him at State would clear out of Hillary's way in 2016 the GOP's leading sane candidate.
 
 
-3 # FDRva 2012-11-30 01:28
Al Gore for Sec'y of State?

The patron of Wall Street's Joe Lieberman?

Do you want to start World War 4??
 
 
+6 # FDRva 2012-11-30 02:35
We stand very close to global thermonuclear war--but only because our political elites are as dumb as their financial community owners.

That arbitrary, artificial 'fiscal cliff' they keep babbling about could be repealed.

It only exists because Wall Street begged Washington to enact it. And Wall Street often does not have the nation's best interests at heart.

For some reason, President Obama is in Wall Streets's corner on this important matter.
 
 
-3 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-30 02:38
Several people want War men for the wrong Job. Can't you low educated lefties get it war men are to make War or defence Sec, Not State Sec who is suppoed to make peace, not defence or War. One is Muscle the other Brain and glib lawer o0r Political tongue. Anyhow the most popular is Gore and he is nice popular Worldwide, Rice is a womqan and very diplomatic as women are. Definately a War man is not for that job ar a time Nixon residual in China is such a -pest. Today announcing just what Hillary warned aganst, they plan to board, arrest, confiscate etc your ships if they pass through their unproven sovereignty claimed 9 dotted line without their permit. So the International sea lanes no longer exist between USA and VFietnam or China or Taiwan and even Korea probabl. That's a red rag to a War type State Secretary?
 
 
+2 # hilo 2012-11-30 12:29
Certainly a lot of comments. I appreciate your good suggestions and especially taking Kerry off the list. Keep the Patriot state Senators right where they are.
 
 
0 # bobby t. 2012-11-30 15:46
kerry definitely stays put. bad to move him. and as far as peace goes, the art of diplomacy of the United States is this: try bribery, then threaten. simple straight forward and the way it has always been. we give foreign aid (bribes) to make sure we are able to make money from those areas. There is no humanitarian reason. Money talks and bs walks folks. We had corporations in South Vietnam and in all the places we have had conflicts with. We send people to die for other people to make money. There has been too much smoke blown up our collective behinds.
 
 
0 # charsjcca 2012-11-30 16:15
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., since we are dreaming.
 
 
+1 # VMWH 2012-12-02 14:54
Remember o
n the subject of Bill Clinton serving as Secretary of State that John Quincy Adams died at his desk in the House of REpresentatives after his time as president and William Howard Taft was appointed to Chief Justice after his one term.
That being said, Gore would be great.
 
 
-1 # Dupageexpat 2012-12-02 16:39
Secretary of State:
1. Susan Rice
2. Al Gore
3. Bill Richardson

Secretary of Defense:
1. Gary Hart
 
 
0 # FDRva 2012-12-03 02:19
Who are we kidding here?

The problem is not the Sec'y of State.

It is the president.

And it is no secret that Barry Obama owes a lot to Wall Street.
 
 
+1 # FDRva 2012-12-03 02:29
An honest president does not pick Cheney Dem Susan Rice.

Let the Ambassador live off her investments.
 
 
0 # Corvette-Bob 2012-12-03 21:43
I would oppose Jon Huntsman since I do to create a person who may run for Pesiden and we add to is creditials. Lets go with Gore to rub him into the face of the Republicans who stole the Presidency from him.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN