Secretary of State: Who should get it & who will get it (Part 1)

As President Obama’s first term draws to a close, the beginning of a second term is rapidly approaching.  During the transition from first to second term, the American public knows there will be some changes to some important cabinet positions.  Both the secretaries of State & Treasury will retire from their posts. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner is not the most popular person to hold the position, but the individual who will replace him will have a lot of cleaning up to do (and will probably have a harder confirmation process than the next Secretary of State).  In addition to this cabinet position, the more important role to fill will be the Secretary of State.  As Hillary Clinton “retires” from politics, it will become a fierce battle over who will be nominated, who will survive the confirmation hearings, and who will ultimately become the next Secretary of State to represent the United States on a global scale.

            The Secretary of State is the fifth most powerful role within the United States Government – in the event of a tragic event that resulted in either death of the President or his in inability to faithfully execute his powers of the Presidency.  This position within the federal government is addresses all of the foreign relations that the United States encompasses on a daily basis.  There are many names going around regarding who will fill this important position. (Such names are usually referred to as “being on the short list”.) I will discuss a few of these names and why they are on the list and whether it would be a good idea for them to fill the position – or not.

            The first name on the list would be the current United States Ambassador to the United Nations – Susan Rice. If she would be confirmed, she would be the fourth woman to ever hold this post.  Already well-versed in National Security issues as well as international issues & crises’, Dr. Rice has the ability to be resilient when needed and understands the power of negotiations. While she is a admirable and highly distinguished candidate for this position, I do not believe it would be wise to place her within such position.   We need a strong voice within the United Nations, and she has the reputation to get things moving in a sometimes stalled-out body of governance.  In addition, I feel that she would struggle with the confirmation hearing within the United States Senate halls.  Some would refer to her handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, which resulted in four deaths including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. 

Regardless of her role about what she did or did not know, some senators make a semi-valid point about when to share sensitive information without being 100% confirmed. The argument of whether she is qualified or not becomes a moot point, as there are many who have held public office that were not qualified to be in a position of power…much less being nominated to hold a federal position (former President George W. Bush – post 9/11 – and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin immediately come to mind……and to be fair, one could argue former President Lyndon Johnson & former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle). Her confirmation process would just become a façade for the Republican Party.  If the Republicans did decide to confirm her nomination, it would be a political maneuver to prove that they are not sexist (and also to earn back the huge gap they had when Romney lost to President Obama in the 2012 election). If confirmed, she would do an exceptional job.

            Another name that has been discussed is Senator John Kerry f Massachusetts.  He certainly has the international respect of to hold such a position; and, as a member of the Senator Foreign Relations committee, he understands the highly classified intelligence gathered within the government of an international crisis.  I also image he would be considered because of his pivotal role in re-electing President Obama during the election cycle. The only problem I really see with this nomination is that Democrats are trying to maintain a steady majority of the United States Senate. It would be unwise for them to leave a seat open that might be open to Republican grabs. I think the worst thing to do is re-elect Scott Brown to stand alongside Elizabeth Warren to represent the Bay State in the Senate. If he were to be nominated and confirmed by the Senate, it would prove (much like the Susan Rice confirmation) that Republicans are trying to be more bipartisan and are attempting to regroup after their party was severely crushed in the 2012 elections. Republicans have a lot of regrouping to do and need to quickly adapt to the changing times…and demographics.

           

            I have much more to discuss regarding this conversation, so please stay tuned as I provide a valid solution (yet probably not even considered) for the fulfillment of this important cabinet position.