Plus , you know, Lehigh wouldn't want Brown back I the senate

It will be interesting to see how Kerry balances his personal ambition for national prominence with his desire to serve the public in the best way possible. I'd hate to see him go too. Ultimately it will be his decision. Scot puts forth a good case. What I especially don't want to see is another special election and Sweet Mary no more Scott Brown.

Scot - I agree with you, but how old is he? I realize some of these guys never leave - see Thurmond, Strom - but does age ever play a role? Kennedy stayed too long and that is what allowed Brown to even become a major player in Mass politics. However, I still agree with you...he should stay at least for another term, but not until he is feeble.

I find it amazing how Scot can lay it on so thick for liberals like John Kerry (who served in Vietnam, by the way).  John Kerry has always been an opportunist, and gone in the direction that helped him politically.  He brought a video camera to Vietnam; he married two very wealth women; and when it was popular, he became a spokesman for anti war radicals.  Secretary of Defense would be especially bad, because he did so much to harm the image of the military.  It would be an insult to our soldiers, and it would likely cause some serious protests.  

Secretary of Defense is not a position for which Sen Kerry has the strongest qualifications.  He voted for the Iraq War and this stain on his record sits as a critique of his military judgment.  He had made his early reputation as a voice against the Viet Nam War and as years passed he forgot the lessons of intervening on dubious grounds in other countries.  Not only was that country destroyed along with innocents and too many of own soldiers, it had political consequences.  It was a significant factor in his lost to GW.  "He was for it before he was against it."  It also led to excessive political power in Congress by Republicans as they could use such opposition support for the war to gain traction because they were on the right side of an issue.  If the President has his head screwed on right he should see that the Senator's acumen on matters of war and peace has a shaky history.

Lehigh, whose journalistic eye is always on the main chance (if it is anywhere), is familiar enough with Senator PT-1099 to know that his subject will reward fulsome praise and shameless flattery with access. Mission accomplished, Scott. As for the rest of us, why do we persist in our belief that the entire career of Senator JFK (Just For Kerry) has been characterized by self-seeking and the marrying of rich women (the pay is great, but the hours are long .... on that job)? Or that his level of arrogance and pomposity has reached such heights that even progressive Democrats complain about him? Or that his alleged Vietnam service does not come close to passing the smell test (three months in country, no blood, false medals, falsely thrown away)? And why do we wonder whether, as SECDEF, he might finally make public his U.S. Navy personnel file? Or whether, as SECDEF, he might carry around his own 8 mm camera (as he did in Vietnam) or instead rely on DOD videographers to record his heroic posturing?

LordC: Off the top of my head, I think 68. Right around there, anyway. Which is only rounding second in the Senate.

"a pleasant surprise to those who remember how easily distracted a younger Kerry had been. Once only average, his staff, both in Washington and Massachusetts, is now considered top-notch.". Wow, the best reason to keep Kerry a senator is his (now) "top-notch" staff. A man dithers in a position of great power for decades and NOW Lehigh figures he's  decided to become engaged and must stick around. To do what? Vote strictly down Democrat lines. And the critical legislation he's lead or championed? Cue cricket chirps. Kerry is yet another testimonial to the need for term limits. He's a posturing, phony, cypher who's only interest is in finding something he can attach himself to that will exault him without him making ANY effort. Much like his choices in marriage. Anyone who suggests otherwise probably also can't see their own hand in front of their face.

I think Obama's tendency to choose currently elected Democrats for senior positions has hurt more than it helped. For example, Jan Brewer would still be a small time tea partier if Obama hadn't chosen Janet Napolitano for DHS. Although I like the idea of someone who is oriented more towards foreign policy running the Department of Defense, I am sure there are plenty of good candidates who aren't currently engaged the way Kerry is.

Great argument, clear thinking, an excellent contribution... to an upcoming national decision. Hope Obama and Kerry are listening. They won't find better advice.  

Sen. Kerry has performed as a kind of "Ambassador at large" for President Obama, and has been very helpful in that capacity.  He could continue that and be very productive while still a senator.

I agree with your assessment of his value to us in Massachusetts and I hope he will accept his roles as a team player and Captain of the team.  

Any scenario that brings back Senator Centerfold is to be avoided at all costs. It's amusing to see wingnuts characterizing John Kerry as ambition-driven, yet embracing Scott "the Narcissist" Brown based on his faux barncoat and pickup truck. Empty suit Brown should be put back out to pasture handling foreclosures for predator banks and picking up the overflow from debt collection outfits.

It seems cynical to me to either stay put in an elected office or to accept a Cabinet post based on political power and posturing. If the President and Sen. Kerry believe he could do a good job as Sec. of Defense, he should move on that. It should not be a consolation prize, nor should acceptance or rejection hinge on political aftermath. For that matter I am not convinced there is any reason for Kerry to seek re-election in 2014, if his only motivation is power. I realize that is what motivates all politicians, but I can't bring myself to endorse it.

I quite agree. I think Obama should think more of objectively matching the functional requirements of the position to the demonstrated strengths of a person in doing those very things. Does the resume really fit the job?  Not just reward for service of a general kind.

I think Hillary Clinton was not a good choice for Secretary of State. While she knows U.S. politics, and is well-known, she does not really understand any of the intrinsic ins and outs of foreign policy and foreign countries or the other cultures most important to understand right now. (As Condoleezza Rice before her also did not: no understanding of the foreign countries, cultures, religions, or languages in the Middle East, for example.)  Both Hillary and Condoleezza I think thus were/are not really capable of understanding, on an empathic level, the people they address from such a high place.   

I seem to remember that when he ran for President, one of his downfalls was he could not point to any major legislation that he championed and led. For the amounht of time there, it was damning. I do not think that has changed much either.

Getting him past the Republican house would be interesting. I can just hear them asking how someone that threw away his "medals" from Vietnam is qualified to be Secretary of Defense..... Another circus show.

You got it right Scott.  Certaintly not SecD.  As any who served withyhim in Vietnam know -- 95% of "Swift Boat" was true.

I have never understood why MA has elected him over and over. And after reading some of the negative comments below, who the heck is voting for the guy? His poorly run Pres campaign gave us George Bush- thanks for that, John

Compromise! President Barack Obama will begin budget negotiations with congressional leaders Friday by calling for $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenue over the next decade, far more than Republicans are likely to accept and double the $800 billion discussed in talks with GOP leaders during the summer of 2011. - wsj