Skip to main content

OK. Sorry but: The conflict of interest represented by Susan Rice's $300-600k holdings in Trans-Canada tar-sands XL Pipeline interests make her absolutely toxic to this Democrat as a candidate for Secretary of State.  In fact, I feel things are such a mess because of this that I now believe Hillary must remain SoS until 2014 so that John Kerry can finish out his current term and help his heir step in to keep his Mass. Senate Seat Democratic before he then moves on to the Cabinet post he really wants.

And well beyond Rice's own $300-600k holdings in Pipeline interests - with her Canadian husband, they together own as much as $1.5 million in Enbridge, which transports Canadian oil sands crude through the United States.   Since the SoS is the ultimate decision maker on approval of international pipelines, she cannot now, in my eyes be Secretary of State.  The conflict of interest is simply too substantial and significant  based on the magnitude of these investments alone.  Simply divesting of them will do little to assure me she can act impartially in the matter.  The tar sands (and that kind of money) stick too well.

And furthermore, Ms Clinton would seem positively virtuous if she remained as SoS a little longer for what would be in both the best interests of her country as well as her party.  And not simply running off to work on her prospects at a 2016 candidacy for president.

UPDATE:  Interesting comment from the NYTimes article's comments:

whcampbell Columbia, MD
As a former Federal Senior Executive I am shocked that the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) didn't make AMB Rice divest this investment as a condition of being confirmed as U.N. Ambassador. Individual equities valued at more than $15,000 are usually a red flag, and a potential conflict of interest. OGE dropped the ball!
 
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry but when you've been fighting fracking (41+ / 0-)

    for four years, and as part of that fight went to the demonstration against XL at the White House last fall, this is just way too personal and close to home.  I was nearly physically sick upon learning of this.  
    And in contrast, John Kerry's environmental bona-fides are impeccable, probably unmatched amongst any of our current (or former) legislators, including Gore.

    There are very few subjects which do not interest or fascinate me.

    by NYFM on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:36:59 PM PST

  •  Ech, I didn't know about this (16+ / 0-)

    Even if it wasn't a conflict of interest given that it has international implications, I'd be uncomfortable with any member of Obama's team holding such a big position in a company dedicated to making global warming worse and further ruining the environment. What kind of person parks their money in such an outfit?

    Whatever happened to Dems who put the country before their own interests?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:58:22 PM PST

  •  There are other options than Kerry. (10+ / 0-)

    I'd still prefer one that would make wingnuts' heads explode, like Al Gore.  I'd rather John Kerry stay put until Scott brown's career is finished (that is, if Kerry vanquishes him in 2014). Plus, having Brown run for that open seat is so obviously what the GOP wants.

    Chuck Hagel is an intriguing choice. We here may not be happy with another GOP crossover pick with so many democratic choices, but it sure would be fun to watch the GOP try to complain about this.

    "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

    by xsonogall on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 07:59:20 PM PST

    •  Other good GOP crossover picks: (5+ / 0-)

      Richard Lugar
      John Huntsman

      Really, the SOS is not a political position in the same way that other cabinet positions are.  There is a reason Hilary was not allowed to attend the Convention.  If a Repub is appointed and is really on the same page as Obama and the administration, then that would really be good for the nation.

      BTW, the story about Rice's holdings is chilling and is actually a quite reasonable point to oppose her nomination.  Thats a huge conflict of interest.

      "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

      by Brian A on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:36:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brian A, cynndara, xsonogall

        I mean, my idea of a decent SoS is Andrew Bacevich if I can't have Noam Chomsky.  (Kucinich seems to be in need of some new appointment too.  Just sayin'.)  

        But if I'm going to have to put up with another "mainstream Democrat" (someone we used to call a "conservaDem" and, before that, a DINO . . . my how the party has red-shifted!), then why not a real Republican?

        •  Great point (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, brae70, xsonogall

          People forget: nearly everywhere else in the world, the US's Democratic party = the Conservative party.

          And of course, that means that the US's Republican party = the batshiat crazy element.

          "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

          by Brian A on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:18:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Lugar is 80 to old (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brian A, xsonogall

        I can see Huntsman but that would end his political career. If it's Kerry I am not that worried about Brown grabbing that seat.  
        Seems like Rice has a conflict but at this point if Obama doesn't choose her he will look weak.

        •  Huntsman doesn't have a political career (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brian A, reddog1, xsonogall

          in the Republican party as now constituted.  Whereas he might do very well as a high-level civil servant.  That's where reasonable people go to hang out.

          •  Yep, exactly (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't mention Huntsman earlier because I don't know what his 2016 intentions are, and it would suck to have him leave his post just to campaign again...

            That said, he's likely toast in the GOP regardless, and he probably knows it.

            If I'm hunstman and i still wanted a political career, I'd switch to Dem and stay in Utah. Didn't he still have good favorability numbers there? He could be our conservadem senator from Utah.

            "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

            by xsonogall on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:30:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  John Huntsman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xsonogall

      Well respected, foreign service experience and no skeletons in his closet.  Plus, the Repub wingnuts don't like him, and showed their disdain by giving him something like 1percent of the primary vote when he had the temerity to run for President.

  •  You'll be sad to know that John Kerry has ties (12+ / 0-)

    to the XL development as well. That particular stick mess has lots of Democratic hands in it if we look closely enough. And, no, I'm not happy with Rice either. Personally her hawkish stance on ME issues bothers me. But how do we move on to another SoS nomination or even keep Hillary without the Repukes claiming a "victory" on this?

    To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.

    by ontheleftcoast on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:01:49 PM PST

  •  Hmmm (25+ / 0-)

    "Simply running off"?

    Hillary does not deserve the sarcasm.  She's done an incredible job in an incredibly hard position.  If she chooses to run for President she has certainly earned the right to make that choice.

    Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. John Prine -8.00,-5.79

    by Miss Blue on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:02:51 PM PST

  •  I'm neutral on Rice for SOS, but (8+ / 0-)

    she could sell the stock and recuse herself from making a decision, and it would be fine.

    Nothing against Clinton(who I think has been great as SOS) or Kerry, but I imagine they have potential conflicts of interest on some matters as well, given Teresa Kerry's wealth and the contributions Bill gets for his foundation. There is away to avoid that, beyond not nominating an individual.  

  •  I'll let the President decide who to nominate (23+ / 0-)

    We did our part in picking him for President, it's his job to decide who is best for the SoS job.

    •  Hear Hear. (5+ / 0-)

      The only people I feel we should take sides on are the President's political people. Such as yours truly's multipronged assault on the atrocious Bill Daley. But for the president's cabinet officers, I don't have dog in that hunt. Whomever he thinks is best is whomever I will support.

    •  "Make Me" --Barack Obama nt (4+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:41:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not how it works - we must keep standing up (7+ / 0-)

      if we want this country to improve. Putting the better guy in office is only the beginning of our responsibilities as citizens, not the end of them. We must hold our elected officials accountable.

      I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

      by Futuristic Dreamer on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:43:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  sure, accountable for outcomes. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, sewaneepat

        If he nominates Rice and she turns out to be a terrible SoS then feel free to point that out. But if he believes she will be the best for the job, then that is who he should select.

        But no, it is not "how it works" for everyone to just demand who should do what job in the Administration.

        •  Actually, it is (6+ / 0-)

          We're a republic. It's our country. We get to have a say in how it's run. It's right there in the preamble and first amendment.

          We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
          We're SUPPOSED to do this. It's in the FAQ.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:54:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Umm, your say was on November 6th. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sewaneepat, TLS66

            Now let your representatives do their jobs. And if you are aggrieved by some outcome feel free to petition the Government for a redress of that grievance.

            But no, you can't demand who is selected for any particular job in the Administration. Nor is the act of selecting someone for a job a grievance.

            I take that back, feel free to demand it if you want. But don't expect to be treated as a serious person (at least by me).

            •  No (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WisePiper, corvo, Futuristic Dreamer

              You literally have no idea how a republic works, or what the word means. I absolutely CAN demand whatever the hell I want. And the petition clause been broadly interpreted to mean petitioning in general, including lobbying. But since you're clearly an authoritarian, you'll never understand the right and obligation to demands things of elected leaders. What an ironic UID you have.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:44:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  lol (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TLS66

                Right, I have no idea how our system works. Awesome. I can already see I was wise to not treat you as a serious person.

                Have a nice day.

                •  Your willful submission to power making you (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WisePiper, corvo, Futuristic Dreamer

                  a Very, Very Serious Person, of course.

                  If it was up to people like you, we'd still be patiently waiting for women to get the vote, child labor laws to be enacted and a social safety net to be established, since we'd never be so rude as to demand these things.

                  No, you don't understand how it works, at all. Loud and annoying is the ONLY way to ultimately get what you want in a democracy. But you're welcome to prove me wrong with actual examples. Of which there are none.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:19:02 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So in your mind... (0+ / 0-)

                    A woman's right to vote, child labor laws, and a social safety net is the same thing as picking a cabinet member.

                    ...I understand.

                    And again, please, have a nice day.

                    •  The setting and implementing of policy (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      WisePiper, corvo, Futuristic Dreamer

                      is always important, and the public always has a right and obligation to weigh in on it, as it sees fit. I take it that when Bush nominated the likes of Bolton, Alito and Brownie you showed proper deference to his constitutional prerogative? I mean, it's not like their appointments caused the country any damage.

                      Stay meek, and let others engage in democracy as it needs to be.

                      Try reading some Paine too while you're at it. Or Jefferson. Or Douglass.

                      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                      by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:35:53 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  sign no petitions (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Futuristic Dreamer

              and contact no elected officials until the next election . . . which means: never contact them at all, right?  Just let them "do their jobs"?

          •  kovie - EXACTLY (0+ / 0-)

            It's lobbying which is a constitutionally protected activity.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:54:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  to lobby is to influence, not demand (0+ / 0-)
              a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to the group's special interest.
              But like I said, feel free to demand if you want. But don't expect to be treated as a serious person (at least by me).
              •  i understand - it's my view that "demands" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Futuristic Dreamer

                are really attempts to influence. No one in Congress has to respond to the "demands" of any individual, but collectively maybe we can influence.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:13:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  influence in this case would be (0+ / 0-)

                  expressions about how someone else would do a better job. This is not about how good a job she would do, or that someone else would do a better job, it's just a demand "Rice is out" based on a presumptive smear that she would be corrupt.

                  •  My comments weren't about Rice specifically (0+ / 0-)

                    but about trying to influence public policy.

                    Rice isn't a favorite of mine and I think she doesn't have the demeanor of a diplomat. However, I am a firm believer that any President should be able to pick their cabinet unless the person is a security risk or doesn't pass the vetting process due to something previously unknown in their past. There may be a little payback going on because of the Dems rejecting John Bolton. Rice is highly qualified, but I would much rather see Kerry in the SoS post. The extensive Canadian energy portfolio can be liquidated after she is confirmed. It's routine for cabinet members. The nice thing for her and her husband is that you don't have to pay any capital gains tax. It's waived because the sales are required under conflict of interest statutes.

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:55:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't think it has anything to do with Bolton (0+ / 0-)

                      I think the Republicans want President Obama to nominate Kerry so they have a shot at Brown filling Kerry's seat. I trust the President will weigh all the facts and make the best decision.

                      I absolutely agree with you (obviously) that we elected the President because we want him to do a job and the last thing we should be doing is throwing obstacles in front of him that undermine his ability to do that job (such as making demands about who he gets to hire to carry out his agenda).

                      The irony, of course, is if it did work the way some in this diary posit then you couldn't hold the President accountable because you would be undermining his ability to do his job. The opposite of what I suspect they think they are doing.

                  •  So you don't see a conflict of interest? (0+ / 0-)

                    At least you're finally agree to the general point that we have a right and obligation to weigh in on matters we disagree with the president on, even if you don't agree with it specifically in this instance--which is you right.

                    See, you're getting the hang of this at last.

                    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                    by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:55:29 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Even the Senate's role is limited to (0+ / 0-)

                advising and consenting.

                [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
                Which would be nice if McCain, Graham, etc actually understood.

                Maybe one of those Teapartiers who always carry around their poster-size Constitutions could read that section to them.

                © grover


                So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                by grover on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:03:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  They have every right to do what they're doing (0+ / 0-)

                  That they're making asses of themselves is another matter. And we have that right as well, per the first amendment and the underlying spirit of a democratic republic. Whether or not we also make asses of ourselves is entirely our choice and something others can see as such if they please, but certainly our right.

                  More to the point, we have an obligation to try to influence elected official's choices, be it on who they nominate or on policy. I am continually stunned by how many people, even here, don't understand how a democratic republic works, or is supposed to work, and advocate this fall in line crap.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:53:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No doubt you're continually stunned (0+ / 0-)

                    I would be surprised if you weren't continually stunned since I would expect virtually everyone you come across to disagree with how you view our system.

                    I do agree though that you have every right to make an ass of yourself.

                    Please proceed kovie.

                    •  So, unable to present a serious argument (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      corvo

                      you resort to personal attacks. Nice, and unsurprising.

                      And, although I strongly disagree with your assumption about how "virtually everyone" views our political system, even were that true, which it's not, it still doesn't make me necessarily wrong. The people are often if not usually wrong about such things, being apathetic low-information rubes who are easily fooled.

                      I would remind you that in the months after 9/11 Bush's approval rating was as high as 90%, even though 9/11 happened on his watch and the failure to prevent it was likely his fault. An overwhelming majority of voters also reelected Nixon and Reagan. My faith in our democracy lies not in my faith in voters, which is minimal, but in the democratic system and attitude, that allows and requires that an engaged minority keep the country moving in the right direction.

                      You can go back to admiring David Brooks now.

                      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                      by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:08:35 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well done kovie. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        grover

                        You know, you didn't seem so concerned about personal attacks when you wrote these comments...

                        You literally have no idea how a republic works
                        If it was up to people like you, we'd still be patiently waiting for women to get the vote
                        you don't understand how it works, at all
                        Stay meek, and let others engage in democracy as it needs to be. Try reading some Paine too while you're at it. Or Jefferson. Or Douglass.
                        See, you're getting the hang of this at last.
                        Get back to me when you also know the difference between authoritarianism and republicanism.
                        You can go back to admiring David Brooks now.
                        You sound like a Republican
                        What part of the word republic do you not understand
                        being apathetic low-information rubes who are easily fooled
                        How would you describe someone who wrote such things?
                        •  Aside from that last one (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          corvo

                          which was descriptive of average Americans, not you (and I'm pretty sure you knew that), all of these other remarks were completely in line with your own views as made clear by your comments, which is that our role as private citizens is to stay silent and let our leaders work their magic, which is not how it works. How could I be personally attacking you by accurately summarizing your views, which are more in line with how Republicans like David Brooks think?

                          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                          by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:32:57 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Average Americans who somehow managed (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          i understand

                          To re-elect Barack Obama by an overwhelming margin.

                          As we're discovering as final vote numbers are coming in, in swing states, where Mitt Romney spent most of his time, the numbers of Average Americans that saw  through him are truly historic.

                          This reinforces one thing. GW Bush lied to the American people. He did if often, and he especially lied about war. He did so enabled by historically great presses like The New York Times. He did it by manipulating the terror watch system as Tim Ridge now openly admits, lies which the media happiy repeated.

                          Once the media is removed, once a charlatan speaks directly to the citizens that people like you (although there are plenty of others here at dkos who feel the same)disdain,  his ability to draw votes from more than mid-40% (as of last count) of voters against a black incumbent during difficult economic times says that the much derided Average American is much wiser than many give him credit for.

                          I don't argue much with folks like you because honestly I don't think it's worth the time to explain to you why our brother and sister Americans deserve respect. That's something that comes from deep within each of us: a guiding moral we have, or not.

                          It can't be taught over the Internet.

                          © grover


                          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                          by grover on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:59:23 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  You sound like a Republican (0+ / 0-)

                Setting the terms of acceptable debate. You don't get to do that. And somehow I think I'll get over not being treated like a "serious person" by you.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:46:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Indeed! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kovie

            One of the reasons Obama came around on marriage equality(beyond Joe's snafu), was we peons had the temerity to voice our sincerely held opinions. I am glad to see the good soldier movement is marching behind their standard bearer, but we need to have better & stronger opinions than sheep about our common future. As I recall Harriet Meyer's nomination  was derailed by the right, not the left. Is the progressive wing of the Democratic party to be once again sent out to pasture for the next four years?

            As surely as there is a god in heaven, I am an atheist.

            by Gemut on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:38:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How unserious of you to not have blind faith (0+ / 0-)

              in a leader and be happy with whatever choices they make, which are obviously always going to be better than you'd ever make. What right do you have to try to influence their choices and actions? How dare you embarrass the most amazing president in the history of the galaxy if not universe?

              /snark

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:48:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  marriage equality is a policy (0+ / 0-)

              The lack of marriage equality is a grievance.

              I am now understanding that some folks don't know the difference between putting in place the team the President wants in order to carry out policy and effect outcomes, and the policies and outcomes themselves.

          •  Who's to say that she will be making decisions (0+ / 0-)

            based on her investment.

            I think we've got a right to air these facts, disagree, protest, whatever.
            We don't have any info that would suggest she would make a worse SOS than any other candidate.

            If we want people to be held accountable for their bad Wall Street investments, that would just about rule anyone out that had any investments.
            Just about anyone with a retirement fund or plan has investments in big oil.

            You can't make this stuff up.

            by David54 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:35:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Any potential conflict of interest is troubling (0+ / 0-)

              This is a bedrock concept in picking anyone to a post, be it through elections or confirmations. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt when there's a potential conflict of interest is never a good idea. She needs to explain this investment and what she intends to do about it if confirmed. But even if she sells it (including her husband, and not to some blind trust she can repurchase at a discount when she leaves office), her having bought it in the first place is troubling. Companies like this are the opposite of progressive, and have no place in a liberal's portfolio.

              I want the threshold of qualification for this important job to be high.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:40:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree with your concern about these investments. (0+ / 0-)

                I think transparency and accountability are important.
                She should be asked about this in her confirmation.
                We should have high standards for everybody in government. We also have to pick a nominee.
                It's possible that there's a "perfect" candidate from every possible perspective out there somewhere.
                Maybe.
                Or there will have to be a "nuanced" choice.
                I"m in agreement about your standards, but in this case, I would like to beat the gop first, then get assurances from Rice that she has dealt with the conflict of interest.
                Otherwise they will try to divide us and have us fighting one another rather than them.

                You can't make this stuff up.

                by David54 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:10:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, good to hold our Dem politicians to a higher (0+ / 0-)

        standard and get rid of the imperfect ones in our party, than get people with some of the same problems (conflict of interest) and play right into republicans hands, when the one they prefer is picked. Don't hold them to such a high standard, where we end up with one that benefit the opposing party.

    •  What, we don't get to weigh in? (4+ / 0-)

      What part of the word republic do you not understand?

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:51:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely, but it's not swinging out that way (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYFM

      Suddenly, Kerry is being painted as the GOP pick, and I'm sick about it. Kerry is far more qualified to be SoS than any other name I've seen, yet now we're stuck with Rice because of McCain and Graham? That is just ridiculous. It isn't just Keystone. What about Africa?

      I think the attacks on Rice regarding Benghazi are absurd, but there are other reasons to be less enamored for her being SoS.

  •  Doesn't matter. Rice will be the next SOS (5+ / 0-)

    Obama has made his intentions pretty clear on this.

  •  While I've come to terms (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM, MJB, grover

    with the whole "Hillary is running in 2016 even though she says she's not" thing, I'm having more trouble with the "Hillary will remain SoS even though she says she's not" idea.

    -
    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:20:32 PM PST

  •  there's been (6+ / 0-)

    a lot of agita about this in the last day or two, but do we know for sure that she directly controls her investments? More likely, any investments are being managed without her input, in a so-called blind trust.

    I know there was much mocking of Willard for such, but it is common for people in public office to place their financial dealings in the hands of professionals to act in their stead.

    And I'd like to see a bit more verification of her portfolio than just one or two blog stories.

    The truth is rarely pure and never simple. -- Oscar Wilde

    by Mnemosyne on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:31:31 PM PST

    •  Her portfolio is accessible on (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mnemosyne, Larsstephens, bepanda, Sky Net, NYFM

      opensecrets -- I don't see any sign of a blind trust. She is extraordinarily wealthy. With $23M to $44M in assets, she is described as the wealthiest member of the executive branch. Her husband is a Canadian by the name of Ian Cameron. He is described as a television producer for a Canadian broadcaster but I bet that most of the Rice portfolio is a product of Cameron family money. I can't confirm that for a fact but the portfolio is almost entirely invested in Canadian companies, which makes it seem as though perhaps it is really his portfolio and the investment decisions were made by him . .

      •  you may be right (0+ / 0-)

        He is exec producer of Stephanopolous' program, plus comes from a family in western Canada that appears to be at least well-to-do. He also went to the London School of Economics, so no dummy. Interesting info at Teh Google.

        The truth is rarely pure and never simple. -- Oscar Wilde

        by Mnemosyne on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:29:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  After listening to Rice Bash The UN Members Today (7+ / 0-)

    for having the gall to elevate Palestine from the trash heap to the recycling bin, I certainly don't  see her as ideologically distant  from the Neocons. She is no Bolton but her willingness to harangue Abbas for seeking recognition on the world stage was revolting. I am sure there are excellent candidates out there who don't limit this choice to an either Rice or Kerry at SOS.

    As surely as there is a god in heaven, I am an atheist.

    by Gemut on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:38:37 PM PST

    •  you know she's an ambassador right? (10+ / 0-)

      And represents the President.

    •  How about all but about 2% of our politicians (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYFM, bepanda, LaurenMonica

      sodomizing Netanyahu on a daily basis. See how many of the 535 members of congress or anyone connected with Washington, would disagree with what she said today. Good luck. You think she's being trashed now, just imagine what it would be like for her, if she didn't disagree with the vote. Why should Susan Rice being held to a different standard?

      •  nice (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg

        I love what passes for intellectual discourse with you.

        It's like watching an unknown winning a boxing match vs. the world champ and asking him halfway why he didn't knock his opponent out in the first round.

        by bsmcneil on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:56:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think you know the meaning (0+ / 0-)

        of the term "sodomize."  It means to take the "top" or "active" role.

        I don't think that 98% of our politicians are forcing Bibi to bend (I use the term advisedly) to their/our political will.

    •  Gemut - she was representing the President (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bepanda, LaurenMonica

      I also think it is her view as well, but the President approved the remarks before she said anything.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:56:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Rice is to Obama what Bolton was to Bush (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo

        Then today was a sad day for Middle East peace. Rice is either a damn good actress or a neocon in training. The vitriol in her voice after the UN vote was a big tell for me. I don't care if Winston Churchill gave her those marching orders, she was a sincere voice for making a bad situation worse. If Obama gave her those orders we are basically in the situation that Rmoney prophesied in the 47% video where he insinuated that kicking the can down the road for four more years was the best course of action in the Mideast.

        As surely as there is a god in heaven, I am an atheist.

        by Gemut on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:17:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gemut - I am with the President and Ambassador (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TLS66

          on this one. I think that today's actions by the UN make the prospects for peace more difficult. The UN is overwhelmingly anti-Israel so the vote was not a surprise. I fear this move by the Palestinians is the start of a back door plan to take Israel to the ICC.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:47:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ICC might be the best place to sort the situation (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            alain2112, corvo

            out if the United States continues to stand by and watch as settlement after settlement shrink the West Bank into a reservation of walls and fences. If Israel has done nothing wrong, why would having a hearing at the ICC be anything to worry about? Only war criminals fear the ICC.

            As surely as there is a god in heaven, I am an atheist.

            by Gemut on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:02:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gemut - the ICC isn't a civil court process (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TLS66

              The International Criminal Court would be the worse place to "sort this out". Israel could not obtain a fair trial at the ICC. There are many reasons why the US isn't an ICC member and one of the primary reasons is that we don't believe the US, or our citizens, could receive fair trials there.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:17:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Tough (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FloraLine

                Certain War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity have universal jurisdiction, notable among these are torture.  The ICC has competence to try anyone referred to it by a state party, holding them whether the individual accused is a citizen of a member state or not.  Neither can failure by their country to adopt protocols to (the Geneva) conventions be an excuse if a critical mass of countries have ratified them.

                "Israel" as a country could not be tried at the ICC but individual soldiers, agents or members of governments could. Disputes between countries are ultimately dealt with by the World Court but this has no powers itself to enforce it's decision.

                "Who stood against President Obama in 2012?" - The trivia question nobody can answer.

                by Lib Dem FoP on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:51:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  LibD - while your statement is accurate (0+ / 0-)

                  In practice it is nearly impossible for citizens of a non-member like the US to be brought before the ICC. For any US citizen, and especially former government or military leaders, to be brought to the ICC would require one of our closest NATO allies to pursue a process that would fracture their diplomatic relationship with the US. And that's not going to happen.

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:06:21 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Even broken clocks are right twice a day (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM, Williston Barrett, Brian A

    Republicans say everything is a bad idea & and they won't let anything get done. Once in a while Dems have a bad idea that actually needs to be stopped, like making someone with a lots of trans-Canada stock Secretary of State. Hopefully Republicans get their way on this one.

    I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:48:57 PM PST

    •  Hopefully they don't because it would be (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover, Larsstephens, Brian A

      an utterly unprecedented victory for GOP obstructionism and you can expect they would get their way on EVERYTHING in the next four years. There has always been an understanding that the president gets whoever he wants for this post, no matter what the opposition party thinks. Even when there has been token, symbolic opposition, as there was to Condi Rice, it has been quickly dismissed as insignificant.

      If they got their way on this, the Obama presidency is crippled — dead. I cannot imagine why anyone here is excited about such an unprecedented victory for the Republican "our way or the highway" types in Congress.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:12:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I wonder this too. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens
        I cannot imagine why anyone here is excited about such an unprecedented victory for the Republican "our way or the highway" types in Congress.

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:08:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nah (2+ / 0-)
        If they got their way on this, the Obama presidency is crippled — dead. I cannot imagine why anyone here is excited about such an unprecedented victory for the Republican "our way or the highway" types in Congress.
        Lets be honest here, its not going to change anything.  Whether Rice is nominated / confirmed or not, the GOP is going to continue to be just as obstructionist as before.  It is still their stated goal.  

        "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

        by Brian A on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:40:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Different standard for Susan Rice? Can you find (6+ / 0-)

    any candidate for SoS without a conflict of interest? Has there ever been one? I bet you will find all of them had a conflict.

  •  Stick Huntsman in there (0+ / 0-)

    Or McCain.......heheheh. O can call him into the oval and give him his talking points and lambast him regularly.

    j/k

  •  I support Susan Rice (9+ / 0-)

    Sorry she isn't pure enough for some people, but I judge her by all that I have seen of her. Amb. Rice has been a forceful progressive voice and I refuse to develop amnesia all of a sudden because she has this particular investment in her profile.

    Is she the only Dem with such an investment? If not, why haven't we had the same objections? I'm tired of new standards whenever there is a minority or female up for a high profile position.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:21:32 PM PST

  •  Hillary's Running..... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alba, Gemut, NYFM, Jeremimi

    After a few years rest, she'll be up to the task of running & winning a campaign.  The Clinton's have mad ambition.  There will be no stopping them in 2016.  Old or not.  

    Both Kelly Ayotte & John McCain are saying they cannot support ANY nominee for SOS now.  I'd worry about that.  Those two could filibuster & stop us from having our most important diplomat.

    They are now making noise there will be NO SOS at all.....if they can stop it.

    Ayotte is a junior Senator w/ two years of experience.  Who does this lady think she is?  She's the reason filibuster reform is absolutely essential.  

    Not having Susan Rice as SOS is the least of our problems.  

  •  Listening to her read the AIPAC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gemut, NYFM

    statement at the UN today made me utterly indifferent to her chances for SoS... which means she'll probably get the job...



    Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

    by chuckvw on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:10:08 PM PST

  •  It's very informative to know your opinion on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM

    this. It may very well be the best course of action. Unfortunately, it will not be taken into account by anyone actually making decisions on this matter. So I don't see the point of the diary.

    •  opinions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beachmom, NYFM

      Well, nobody making decisions reads any of these diaries.  Anybody thinking they're influencing policy is just kidding themselves.  But it's still interesting to discuss.

      History will be kind to us because we will write it.

      by Sky Net on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:05:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, people making decisions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM

        DO read these Diaries.

        They would be foolish not to, and they are not fools.

        Agreeing with the Diary is quite another matter.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:32:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hilary will have approved the Keystone Pipeline (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM

    by 2014, if she hears your plea and decides to remain at her post until then.  If Hilary approves the request at the State Dept for the pipeline  to cross the border, does it take Susan Rice off the hook?  Could she serve as Secretary of State and still hold her TransCanada shares?  And will you still vote for Hilary in 2016?

    TransCanada isn't going to wait around patiently.  It expects an approval right away now that the election is over.  There are a lot of other companies that have a stake in the filthy tar sands too.  

    Do you watch popular media, how many times have you seen this dude?  Exxon-Mobil buys a lot of ad time.  It keeps the media quiet.  The pipeline could be approved without any of the cable channels ever breathing a word about it.

    Here he is again with his irritated attitude.

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    by leftreborn on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:53:42 PM PST

  •  Hillary voted FOR the Iraq war ... didn't she? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sewaneepat, Sky Net, LaurenMonica

    And it didn't stop her from being an excellent SoS.
    Does anyone here believe the current President could have pass the confirmation hearings given his opposition to the Iraq war? I doubt it. The Republicans would never have allowed it to happen.
    Susan Rice represents the Administration at the UN. And even as SoS, she will be implementing the President's policies. Every American President in office has given Israel whatever they wanted. Obama has made it clear it wasn't going to be any different with him.
    But, the way the President /SoS handled the Arab Spring shows a clear contrast between Democrats and Republicans. Mubarak , Gaddafi would still be President if Bush was in Charge.

  •  The real problem with Ambassador Rice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brian A, NYFM

    The real problem with Ambassador Rice has nothing whatever to do with her qualifications, for by education and background, she is most eminently prepared to serve as Secretary of State.  As to her potential conflicts of interest, few if any in the political arena are pure--not even President Barack Obama--in the sense that the so-called progressive blogosphere demands of its candidates.

    For me, the difficulty lies in the truth that Ambassador Rice is a rather uninspired potential candidate.  What the selection of former Senator Hillary Clinton did was to prove that President Barack Obama truly wanted to adhere to his belief in a "team of rivals."  She was a dazzling choice, in every sense: a Former First Lady, a New York US Senator, and the President's former rival--who very nearly bested him for the Democratic Presidential nomination, in spite of the fact that there are all too many on this site who has never accepted that reality.

    Hillary was nearly the unanimous choice of her fellow Senators, applauded by nearly everybody (notwithstanding the "purists" on this site), here and throughout the wider world.  She brought early foreign diplomacy gravitas to the then fledgling Obama administration in the one area in which he was then not considered to have sure footing.  Hillary Clinton has since proved herself to have been the most accomplished Secretary of State this country has ever produced at least since the close of the Second World War.

    There is only one possible selection that the President could make that would be greeted with the measure of enthusiasm on a world stage that met the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that would be to select former President Bill Clinton himself.  Constitutional scholars would need to argue the implications of the Presidential line of succession, but apart from that issue, the selection of the Platinum Politician of the past century would set off a supernova of fireworks such as no Presidential choice has witnessed in the full span of our nation's history.

    Whereas once many in the GOP spent countless days spent in destroying all things Bill Clinton, today he is even for many of them a rather refreshing throwback to a time of comparative peace and prosperity, with balanced budgets and surpluses.  

    And in a very real sense, the ceaseless excoriation of the former President's sexual dalliances has truly matured America, finally coming to grips with the fallacy of its Puritanical past.    This is why the revelation of sexual peccadillos by even United States generals now only has a limited press life.  

    With Bill, long the favorite whipping boy all those still sexually frustrated politicians and pundits, the very human sexual dynamic in all of us became the more acceptable.  Thus, even very Red State South Carolina was oblivious to the multitude of indiscretions by then candidate Newt Gingrich--citing Bill Clinton's past as precedent, the clear majority of Gingrich voters themselves voiced the opinion that regarding sexual matters, they just no longer cared.

    Bill Clinton has been so ceaselessly investigated by so many and on so many levels that he is now beyond the pale of any possible investigation.  There is a yet voracious and very vocal minority--roughly some thirty percent of the American electorate--of Bill Clinton detractors, writing anywhere and everywhere about what they perceive to be his lewd and wanton ways.  They are, I would submit, the most sexually frustrated of us all, who hate Bill not because they find him wanton, but because they feel that they themselves cannot be.

    But for what is now a clear majority of the electorate--that all important seventy percent--the genius side of Bill Clinton, that "Explainer in Chief" as President Obama aptly has labeled him--has never been more relevant.   A political rock star of the highest magnitude, his DNC re-nomination of President Obama, his dozens of stump speeches and asides on the campaign trail, to say nothing of his CGI Conferences which now eclipse any other gathering of diverse minds on a world stage, makes him the most sought-after of any possible leadership image.

    As to the future plans for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, possibly only after a hiatus will she herself know.  Unlike those on this site who acknowledge that she will be approaching her seventieth year should she decide to again run for the Presidency--and thus ridiculously exclude her, rather brazenly noting their own age discrimination prejudice--I believe that she will then absolutely sail to the nomination and to the Presidency itself.  

    What too many young progressives on this site cannot understand is that the AARP itself is now full of glittering, still very hip and relevant former Baby Boomers, including the likes of Warren Beatty, Meryl Streep, Barbra Streisand, Denzel Washington, Jack Nicholson, Tim Allen, Tom Hanks--for them, and for much more the country than the age discriminators on the site can possibly imagine-today approaching seventy is rather like approaching forty was only a few decades ago.  

    Ronald Reagan was all of sixty-nine on approaching the Presidency in 1981, and although he was then in truth a rather plastic and addlepated has-been film star, nobody then much thought anything about his advanced age.  His bout with Alzheimer's was evident but not acknowledged until afterwards, and Alzheimer's--as any medical professional will tell you--is not an illness that is solely defined by age.  

    The point is that if Ronald Reagan could be accepted as a President in his seventies in the 1980s, there is simply no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton could not be accepted as a President in 2017--when seventy really has become "the new forty."

    But as to the here and now, President Obama needs to inspire in his second term of Cabinet selections.  If what he wants are supremely qualified but rather pedestrian choices, then he will call upon the likes of Ambassador Susan Rice to serve as his administration's new Secretary of State.  If what he wants is explosive dazzle, by which his second administration will leave in the dust the second term picks of most of his presidential predecessors, he will aim for the stars, and nothing less.

    And regarding the Secretary of State office, there is only one person who can dazzle more than has Hillary Clinton herself, and that is her husband Bill.  Such a selection--should former President Clinton be inclined to serve, inasmuch as his CGI already has him at the summit of the world stage--would be met with the sort of pyrotechnic display that would bring new meaning to Supernova.  Such a selection would be supersede the term "team of rivals," and instead be referred to "team of the very highest of equals"--a President and a former President, conquering world turmoil, systematically one battle at a time.

  •  Everyone talks like a pundit now. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sewaneepat, i understand

    This one must divest, this other one must stay in her job, etc.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:43:51 AM PST

  •  What a silly title for a diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TLS66
    Hillary must remain SOS for Kerry in 2014. Rice is out.
    Secretary Clinton must do something because some diarist on DK says so? Here's a news flash - she is a grown up woman who can make her own decision. As for the rest of the title - the President makes those decisions. And you know something? He has a hell of a lot better idea about the world situation and the qualifications of all the candidates for the office than you do. And there are a lot more important qualifications for representing the President and the United States as SOS than what holdings her husband has.

    What entitlement - to think that you command Sec. Clinton or the President concerning the most important appointment he makes in his cabinet.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:50:01 AM PST

    •  Bow to authority much? The only way (0+ / 0-)

      to be more obsequious would be to just outright state "Obama is our better; we're not worthy to be in the same room, building, city, state, or country as that man."

      •  No, that is just as silly as the title of this (0+ / 0-)

        diary.

        Do you not think that the President is more knowledgable about the intricacies of foreign policy than you or I? If you are more knowledgable, even without the benefits of intelligence briefings, etc., then perhaps you should run for President.

        Furthermore, do you not think that the President should have someone he trusts to be SOS? Do you not think that he knows these people better than you or I or the diarist? Perhaps you and the diarist know better than the President all about world affairs and the qualifications and working relationships with Ambassador Rice, Sen. Kerry, and Sec. Clinton, but I doubt it.

        Even if you do, he is the President and has the authority and duty to appoint a SOS; you and the diarist don't. And Hillary Clinton does not have to do what the diarist or you want. She is her own authority over her life, not you and not the diarist. I will bow to her authority over her own life.

        Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but saying that someone else must do something or that someone else is out when that person has no authority to make the appointment is the height of hubris. I would have no problem with the diarist expressing the opinion that he would like Sec. Clinton to stay or that he opposes Amb. Rice as SOS, but the way it is expressed is silly. I certainly don't bow to the authority of someone who has none.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:30:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So your issue is with the semantics of (0+ / 0-)

          his diary title? Why bother to comment, then.

          •  My comment was about the semantics of the (0+ / 0-)

            diary title, yes. Did you not read my comment before commenting on it?

            The reason I bothered to comment is because I found it silly, offensive, and distracting from the issue. I read the diary in the first place because from the sound of the title, I expected to find some news about Rice withdrawing from consideration.

            How people express themselves matters - or not perhaps. But I take people more seriously if they express their opinion as such and not as a statement of fact or as a demand, especially when it is a demand for someone like Sec. Clinton to do something which she has said she does not intend to do.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:49:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Semantics lesson! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYFM

      "Must" can mean, in this context, "I can compell her to remain SOS" or "I believe she has a moral obligation to remain SOS."  I'm sure the diarist meant the latter.

      Much as I can't wait for her to step down, but that's just me.

  •  I don't know the solution. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sewaneepat, NYFM

    I think Hillary is exhausted, and deserves to step down when she desires to. Most Secretaries of State only serve one term because of the grueling schedule.

    I think Kerry is simply more qualified than Rice, but at this point I am fed up with the whole process. The NYT basically saying Kerry is the GOP's choice so they can get Brown back in the Senate, and people like Maddow agreeing. Very dispiriting discussion. How about who would do a better job?

    As to Hillary 2016, who knows? Those sure in either direction don't realize Hillary herself has made no decision. I imagine she will need a lot of sleep before she is ready to decide.

    •  You're right about how long SoSs (0+ / 0-)

      generally serve.  Of the U.S. Secretaries of State since the end of WWII, only Dean Rusk served a full eight years (1961-69).  Two came close, John Foster Dulles, who probably would have served a full 8 years had he not been forced to step down in 1959 due to the cancer that killed him, and George Shultz, who was appointed in 1982 and stick around for the rest of the Reagan administration.

      "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

      by TLS66 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:07:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can we see additional names? (0+ / 0-)

    Certainly SOS candidates cannot only be Rice, Kerry or Huntsman.

    I would like to believe that there are other inspiring candidates that can do a great job and have credibility in the international community.

    GOP: Get on the train or get the hell out of our way. Forward! This is our moment...this is our time! President Barack Obama

    by ankae on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:44:53 AM PST

  •  The Clintons have interests in many questionable (0+ / 0-)

    foreign compagnies (in Saudi Arabia among other thing) but it never stopped Hilary from becoming SoS and be effection, so tell me why Susan Rice should be hold at different standards?

    At last the decison is for President Obama to make not you.

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:23:13 AM PST

  •  WAPO (0+ / 0-)

    also mentioned this morning that she has investments in Iran.  I don't see  how someone with major investment holdings that are toxic to both the Left AND the Right can survive confirmation hearings for any position, let alone SOS, even if Reid manages to drop the filibuster for confirmations.

    •  WaPo is referring to the Shell stocks her husband (0+ / 0-)

      and she own in their portofolio. My uncle also owned Shell Stocks and he is a retiree.

      "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

      by LaurenMonica on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:35:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama could make this all go away (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo

    The President could make Ambassador Rice's investment portfolio a non-issue by simply denying the Keystone XL permit NOW.There ya go -no appearance of impropriety,no conflict of interest,case closed.

    •  What an excellent comment. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYFM

      But I don't think we should hold our breath.  Seems to me Obama wants Keystone XL, and only massive pressure from those pesky "emoprogs" (like, umm, yours truly) forced him to postpone a final decision.

  •  "Hillary must remain SoS until 2014"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sewaneepat

    I happen to know that this thing called the 13th Amendment abolished involuntary servitude, so I don't know how you make her stay if she wants to leave -- and she clearly seems to want to leave.  What's more, she DESERVES some rest.  She's two years older than me, and I think I'd be dead if I tried to maintain the schedule she has for the past four years.

    What's more, I don't know why we'd be any more likely to retain Kerry's seat if he left the Senate in 2014 than if he left in January 2013.  Deval Patrick would be appointing his replacement, and it might even be better to have somebody with two years of seniority running in 2014 than to have it be a brand new candidate.  In fact, if Kerry were to be the appointee, I could easily see Deval Patrick working out a deal to resign as Governor and have the Lt. Governor appoint him to fill the vacancy.

    Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

    by leevank on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:56:29 AM PST

    •  Patrick gets to appoint a sucessor all right, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYFM

      but Massachusetts law require a special election between 120 and 150 days.  This is how Brown won the seat, in a special election in January, 2010.  

      "Hope, not despair, is the fuel for action." - William Manchester

      by brae70 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:16:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why will that be any different ... (0+ / 0-)

        two years from now?

        Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

        by leevank on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:49:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It wouldn't be much different, I just (0+ / 0-)

          misundertood your comment about about "two years seniority" to mean that you were overlooking the requirement for a special.  My apologies if that isn't so.

          The worst thing about a special would be that Massachusetts residents would be subjected to yet another incessant round of ads and phone calls.  Not that this would work to the advantage of either the Dems or Repubs.

          "Hope, not despair, is the fuel for action." - William Manchester

          by brae70 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:11:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site