By Al Giordano

This has just been posted to Narco News...

Eleven years ago, on December 22, 1997, paramilitary troops in earshot of a federal military base massacred 45 unarmed civilians - mostly women and children - as they prayed in a Church in the Mexican town of Acteal. The gunmen - every major human rights and media organization now agrees - sliced open the bellies of the pregnant women and shot the 45 Tzotzil-speaking farmers and their children at point blank range. The victims were members of a pacifist Catholic organization known as Las Abejas ("The Bees").

Bill Clinton was the president of the United States, Madeleine Albright his Secretary of State, and the Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere was Jeffrey Davidow, a State Department lifer with the dubious record of having been political officer at the US Embassy in Chile during the September 1973 US-backed coup d'etat there.

For more than a week prior to the massacre, non-governmental organizations in Chiapas, Mexico, had warned the US State Department of the impending atrocity. But the deal had already been struck with the Mexican regime that in exchange for its acquiescence to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the US would turn a blind eye to all matters of human rights in Mexican territory...

You may read the rest over there.

By Al Giordano

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, NOVEMBER 20, 2008: George Stephanopoulos' report last week on ABC that the Obama family had secretly met with "Rex" at the Hyde Park Humane Society Kennel has touched off a firestorm of conflicting reports, rumor, gossip, innuendo, drama and questions about whether the young golden retriever could be vetted in time for Inauguration Day next January 20.

President-elect Barack Obama had, on the night of November 4, issued a vague set of promises involving "change" to his two daughters, Sasha and Malia, that they had earned a new puppy that would be coming with them to the White House. But serious questions remained as to what kind of puppy, from what region of country, whether it would be a mutt (the president-elect's personal choice) or hold a pedigree, and its level of experience at tackling the tough White House challenges ahead.

Rex declined to return calls from this reporter, directing us to the Transition Team, which declined to respond. But speculation swirled across Washington today about the implications of the rumors.

"Barney, the lame duck dog of the Bush White House, leaves heavy paw prints to fill," two Democratic Party sources told Andrea Mitchell of NBC. "It is unknown whether the puppy to be chosen by the Obamas will be able to tackle the challenges of knowing which members of the White House press corps to bite, where the bones are buried in the Rose Garden, and solving the Middle East peace process."

The New York Times reported earlier this week that Malia Obama had officially offered the job to Rex. The Guardian then published a story stating that Rex had agreed to the position. But now tensions have erupted between the Rex and the Obama camps over a constant stream of leaks, and a high placed source reveals that Michelle Obama is concerned that those leaks could continue to trickle over the carpet in the Oval Office come January.

The Huffington Post has cited three sources close to Rex revealing that he is undecided about the job, "because there is so much important work yet to be done at the kennel." But high placed kennel sources note that Rex, at six weeks old, is very low on the seniority totem pole and will have to wait months before the possibility of becoming alpha-puppy in any of the cages there. Rex is also reportedly concerned that his possible role in an Obama White House will be curtailed by infighting and competition from the pitbull already chosen (said to be named "Rahm") and a lack of clarity as to whether he would be able to choose his own team of under-puppies and assistant puppies.

"Rex is worried about Obama's pledge of bipartisanship," a highly placed source told The Drudge Report. "I mean, think about it: Obama reaches out to Mitt Romney and the next thing you know Rex ends up on the roof of the family car in a cage on the way to Camp David."

The speculation about Rex - will he or won't he? - has been the major topic in the media and across the blogosphere. Michelle Malkin of Hot Air called it "an affirmative action appointment" and questioned whether Rex is in fact a US citizen or a Golden Labrador. ‘If they allow a Canadian puppy onto US soil illegally, next thing you know Obama will be negotiating with terriers, and without preconditions," she told Fox News. "Furthermore, Rex should be required to learn English first." And Dick Morris told the Sean Hannity that passing up the black Labrador in the next kennel will definitively end the honeymoon between Obama and civil rights leaders.

But the editorial board at National Review has cheered the possibility that Rex will become the White House puppy, stating: "The last Democrat in the White House had a cat named Socks, clearly a wealth redistributor, and we're encouraged that the Obamas have chosen a symbol of capitalism in a dog, although we would have preferred a pig... with lipstick."

In other news, the big three automobile manufacturers went into bankruptcy today, the Dow tumbled 1500 points, and Vice President Dick Cheney signed an executive order making his fourth branch of government permanent.

But, wait, we have a breaking story, this just in: Sources close to Rex have said that the puppy has already passed the vetting process and they will be leaking more important news tomorrow about Rex's preconditions for accepting the post. Film at 11!

Update: I've incorporated some of your very funny lines in the comments section - especially Jason's - over at the latest version, now posted to DKos.

By Al Giordano

As Jed says about the news reports regarding the possible appointments of Eric Holder as Attorney General and Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health and Human Services:

"Notice that with both Holder and Daschle, President-elect Obama has apparently offered the post, and the post has been accepted. No mess, no fuss."

No drama, indeed, compared to the simultaneous dysfunctional circus surrounding the media lobbying campaign and ethical quagmire-without-end of possibly installing Senator Clinton in as Secretary of State.

But there has been a bit of drama-from-below regarding Holder that I'd like to push back against: The suggestion that if somebody served in the Clinton administration that makes him a "Clinton retread" who would somehow impose the fracased politics of the past on the immediate future.

A brief history lesson is in order...

Way back in ancient times - I'm talking about 2007 - the most difficult place to be a supporter of then-Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid was inside the Washington DC beltway.

The Terry McAuliffe wing of the DNC didn't yet have Bill Richardson to call a "Judas" or John Kerry to proclaim "dead," and so their wrath was turned against the first small wave of those they considered turncoats for not backing Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations. Oh, they could tolerate the "progressive bureaucrats" flirtations with John Edwards, who they never really considered to be a threat. But, lordy, if you dared support the long, tall upstart from Illinois, they hated you intensely already.

If you were a Democrat in or around DC and backed Obama for president you were a pariah, shunned, no longer invited to the cocktail parties or policy panels. And no small number of Clinton bandwagoneers would take every chance to remind you that, once the White House had been reconquered, you would be screwed to the wall, and viciously so.

And that's why that some of the teeth-gnashing proclamations that Obama's appointment of Clinton administration veterans Greg Craig as White House Counsel and, now, the reports that Eric Holder may be nominated for Attorney General, somehow signal that "Clinton retreads" will seize the Obama Experiment are bizarrely wrong and lacking in political smarts.

No Obama administration staffers are more guaranteed to be free of Clintonesque manipulation or fantasy than those like Craig and Holder that at great risk to their careers bucked the Clinton machine back when the polls suggested Senator Clinton's "inevitable" nomination to the presidency. They're battle-tested, inoculated and have zero illusions about wanting to relive the failed Clinton presidency. They've learned decisively from its mistakes in a depth and detail that most will never have the chance to do.

Is "failed" too strong a word? Well, in the partisan won-loss category for the Democrats, the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency resulted in significant Republican gains in the Senate, the House, the governorships and state legislatures across the land, even down to the municipal level. That's the objective math. And the quality of Democratic office holders deteriorated during that era, too.

Hope for progressive agendas snapped within the first two years of the Clinton administration. The Gingrich Revolution of 1994 and its "Contract for America" shut down all progressive initiatives, and the Clinton legacy - beyond its tabloid-fodder dysfunctions - turned out to be terribly corporate neoliberal: NAFTA, welfare "reform," the squandering of the post-Soviet peace dividend, and a bipartisan hawkish foreign policy. It all culminated in... Gore-Lieberman 2000 and the Bush-Cheney White House.

(Those that claim that critiques of those that brought us these multiple messes as somehow reflecting "Clinton hate" or "derangement syndrome" have not, without exception, studied or learned from the real results of that era in American politics. Some simply weren't paying much attention to American politics back then, and others should know better but lack historic memory.)

That said, many that do understand just how woefully harmful the Clinton presidency was to progressive politics and the Democratic Party, would do well to think before presuming that anyone that was part of the Clinton White House is therefore carrying its agenda and baggage into Team Obama.

Regarding Craig and Holder and others that openly defied and divorced the Clinton organization to support Obama for president, they burned their bridges consciously with beneficent aforethought last year. And they did so against a vindictive crew that warned them, at the time, that they'd be punished, even ruined, for it. That strongly suggests backbone, principle and political smarts (after all, they also bet early on the winning longshot horse).

Interestingly, not inoculated in the ways that Holder and company are now immune to Clintonism are certain sectors of the liberal Netroots who mistakenly see Senator Clinton as a viable option for Secretary of State. Some simply don't care that much about America's foreign policy or understand the State Department's role and how its Secretary daily determines life and death policies without chaperone from Pennsylvania Avenue. Others, I opine, are suffering a kind of "winner's guilt" after Chicago bested Chappaqua, children that, not understanding the reasons for the separation, wish their divorced parents would get back together all under one roof. Alas, it will take generations to overcome the infantilization of too much in American life and politics.

At Daily Kos, for example, the most influential online water-cooler in American politics, I would estimate this newly-Clinton-illusioned subgroup to be about 20 percent of the commenters, based on this math: that during the primaries, in poll after poll there, support for Clinton had a ceiling of about 10 percent. But in recent days, as the debate over the Secretary of State position has occurred and people have drawn up positions, there seems to be about 30 percent support. These are the people crying, "the primaries are over" as if all the critiques of Clintonism were merely insincere electoral charades or began only last year (and they are of course joined by the 10 percent that are Clinton fanboys-and-girls).

Meanwhile, among the 70 percent or so of the Netroots for whom events have not bamboozled us into thinking that anything at all has changed about Clintonian operating procedure (and have only seen it confirmed by the media freak show and cat-and-mouse Hamlet games surrounding talk of and lobbying for the Secretary of State post), some folks definitely need to learn to see the difference between the ex-Clintonites and the eternally stuck-in-the-90s ones.

Sometimes the best way to test reality is to go see what they are saying on the other side of the ideological spectrum. On the neoconservative right, the gushing over Clinton as Secretary of State from Kissinger on down has been very revealing (and has led some of the right-wing wiseguys that are sometimes capable of seeing the political machinations - in this case John Fund, Rush Limbaugh and Kathryn Jean Lopez - to suggest that we are witnessing another classic Obama "head fake" simply because it seems too good to be true that the Obama that just kicked their asses at the ballot box would so immediately hand back to them that gift that keeps on giving).

The right wing loves the idea of a Secretary of State Clinton.

But they're super scared about what an Attorney General Eric Holder could accomplish to undo all the harm that they have wrought.

To wit: Today's National Review editorial:

Holder is a conventional, check-the-boxes creature of the Left...

He is convinced justice in America needs to be "established" rather than enforced; he's excited about hate crimes and enthusiastic about the constitutionally dubious Violence Against Women Act; he's a supporter of affirmative action and a practitioner of the statistical voodoo that makes it possible to burden police departments with accusations of racial profiling and the states with charges of racially skewed death-penalty enforcement; he's more likely to be animated by a touchy-feely Reno-esque agenda than traditional enforcement against crimes; he's in favor of ending the detentions of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay and favors income redistribution to address the supposed root causes of crime...

To be blunt, Holder is a terrible selection. If there's any Obama cabinet nomination that Republicans feel moved to oppose, this should be it.

In other words, if Holder is nominated, the right-wing - ready to toss flowers down the altar for a possible Clinton nomination, because they know how it would give them the permanent opportunity to flummox and bollix Obama from authentically changing US foreign policy - will focus its firepower on trying stop Holder's confirmation. And that's the best unintended endorsement that an Attorney General nominee can have. But it also means we have to protect Holder's back, go into battle, and best them once again.

Just as the Clinton for Sec. of State trial balloon has brought the first executive branch test of whether we at ground level can make a convincing case to keep Obama on his own stated path of no-drama change, the Holder nomination, if it happens, will offer the first test of whether Obama's grassroots base, inside and out of the blogosphere, will be ready and able to have the president-elect's back when he's right.

It's an open secret that if President-elect Obama wants to see what a nightmare it would be to have an adversarial relationship with a significant part of his base on matters of foreign policy, he'll get that and more if he nominates Senator Clinton as Secretary of State. I'm sure I'm not alone among those that would have to migrate from hope mode to watchdog vigilance if that were to become the new executive branch's first big boneheaded mistake.

And if he wants to see what a dream it would be to truly have the backing of one's base on matters of justice and law, he'll likewise get that and more if he nominates Eric Holder as Attorney General.

One would likely be the most damaging Secretary of State since Henry Kissinger: a train wreck in the making.

The other would likely be the best friend of the Bill of Rights at Justice since Ramsey Clark.

Two people, each with experience in the Clinton administration, would be as different as heaven and hell when it comes to governing.

Thus, how we view potential nominations to the new administration should not be about whether a person was ever involved with the Clinton White House, but rather whether each one, as an individual, would propagate its dysfunction or not. Holder has already broken from it. And I'm sure I'm not alone in having his back.

Update: There are already some comments here regarding Holder and drug policy, and I'll try to address them here up front.

 

I am utterly unconcerned about Holder's past positions as US Attorney or elsewhere regarding mandatory sentencing, marijuana policy and the rest. In fact, I think his past missteps on these matters will make it more possible for progressive changes to be made regarding drug policies on various fronts. He will provide cover for them.

First, because those stances will help him gain Senate confirmation in ways that an on-the-record anti-prohibitionist would not be able to do. Second, because Obama has been quite clear about changes he would make to certain law enforcement policies regarding the drug war.

This video - of Obama in New Hampshire in September 2007 - is a must-view for all of us that want to change drug policies. It clearly shows his agenda on some of the most key matters:

 

 

During the campaign, Obama also promised to halt federal raids on medical marijuana clubs. These are very clear policies that require simple one-step instructions to the next Attorney General, who, no matter who it is, will talk a tough game on crime and drugs to provide cover for these kinds of reforms. And I think Holder will be terrific at that. Just my two cents, based on my long experience in the drug policy reform field.

By Al Giordano

Now, there's a disappointing image.

I'm among those that would have preferred that the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus had expelled Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman today.

They didn't. Some colleagues are blaming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Others are blaming President-elect Obama.

I don't think such thinking is reality based.

The Senate Caucus rules call for a secret ballot. That's the problem. Nobody can demand any accountability from anybody when there is no transparency as to how each member voted. 

While a secret ballot is a cherished right for a rank-and-file voter, in situations of public responsibility it runs counter to authentic democracy. Legislators - or anyone in a public role, with responsibility to others - ought to be required to make decisions in public.

In many of the indigenous communities where I've worked and sometimes lived, all major decisions are made by public assembly. That's a system that works very well. Everybody's vote on community matters is known to everyone else in the community. If someone is unusually silent about a matter that directly involves them, they can be asked about it aloud. And in general it nips a lot of problems in the bud before they fester into larger conflicts or violence.

That's why I also favor the Employee Free Choice Act, in workplaces, so that workers can know which of our colleagues support being represented by a union or not. Some say that can lead to peer pressure and is therefore somehow undemocratic. No: As workers we share a responsibility to each other and we ought to be accountable for it.

Based on the vote today, I believe that even if Reid and Obama had lobbied every last senator to vote to expel Lieberman, the result, in a secret ballot, would have been the same to keep him.

The problem is not the leaders: it's that, for better or worse, that was the view of the majority of the members, and the existence of the secret ballot - bizarre for elected officials - is what made it possible for them to cast votes without consequences.

There are very good reasons for the Democratic Caucus to change leaders, but they have to do with more important issues than that of one Senator and what kind of personality would best be suited to the new task ahead of governing with a clear majority, something that Reid doesn't seem well suited to do. But I'm not going to use that preference to scapegoat him for Lieber man's salvation today: the blame for that goes around to most of the Democrats in the Senate, and the secret ballot that allows them, as individuals, to escape accountability for their votes.

There can be no party discipline with a secret ballot, and disciplining public officials is a necessary and worthy goal. Changing the rules would, in fact, go a lot farther than changing the leaders and improving the senate. In fact, changing the rules would likely end up in a change of leadership, probably faster than any other route.

Finally, in this process of transition, we're going to win some and we're going to lose some. What's important is that we win or lose like adults, and not let our disappointments or sometimes legitimate anger cloud our strategic thinking for the next battle. This is a series of fights. Those that keep their heads will win more of them.

And on that note, I opine: If the reports of Eric Holder as a possible Attorney General come true (and, again, we won't really know until there is an official statement from Obama or his staff), I think that's a fine choice to bring civil liberties and civil rights back into the legal system after so many years of exile. And it doesn't matter to me a whit who he represented as an attorney because that's also how the legal system should work.

Update: Ha ha. (Thanks to Field reader Kit for this link: "Hillary Clinton could reject State offer.") Here comes the corrective spin, right on queue!

By Al Giordano

"When we have an announcement about Cabinet appointments, we will make it. There is no doubt that I think people want to know who's going to make up our team, and I want to move with all deliberate haste, but I want to emphasize deliberate as well as haste. I'm proud of the choice I made of vice president, partly because we did it right. I'm proud of the choice of chief of staff because we thought it through. And I think it's very important in all these key positions, both in the economic team and the national security team, to -- to get it right and -- and not to be so rushed that you end up making mistakes."

-   President-elect Barack Obama, November 7, 2008

There are many annoying aspects of the noise machine that is blaring that arrogant and cacophonous yet familiar mantra: "Clinton is inevitable."

We heard it for all of 2007 when they told us that Senator Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee for president.

And we're hearing it all over again regarding that same Senator Clinton and the position of Secretary of State. "It's a done deal. It's inevitable. He's already offered it. She's already taken it."

I say to you now as I told you and so many others then: It is not inevitable.

And there's a very interesting twist in the story tonight because one Chicagoan of gigantic integrity has stepped forward to insert some reality into the noise.

Abner Mikva - former federal judge, law professor, member of Congress, reformer of Chicago politics, chairman of the Illinois Human Rights Commission... and former White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton - told the New York Times today:

The vetting of Mr. Clinton's myriad philanthropic and business dealings is "complicated, and it may be the complications that are causing hesitation on both sides," said Abner J. Mikva, one of Mr. Obama's closest supporters and a White House counsel during the Clinton administration. "There would have to be full disclosure as to who all were contributors to his library and foundation. I think they'd have to be made public."

While aides to the president-elect declined Monday to discuss what sort of requirements would make it possible for Mrs. Clinton to serve as secretary of state, they said Mr. Obama would not formally offer her the job unless he was satisfied that there would be no conflicts posed by Mr. Clinton's activities abroad.

Associates of the Clintons said that Mr. Clinton was likely to have to make significant concessions and that he was inclined to do so. Among other things, they said, he would probably have to agree not to take money for speeches from foreign businesses that have a stake in the actions of the American government. Another obvious issue, Democratic lawyers said, would be whether Mr. Clinton's foundation should accept money from foreign governments, businesses or individuals for the foundation's philanthropic activities and if it should disclose those donors publicly.

"The problem is it's going to require some sacrifice by him," said a former Clinton aide who is not involved in the discussions but did not want to be identified because the talks are confidential. "If he's not willing to do that, it could blow up."

One proposal, floated by Mr. Mikva and several other aides involved in the vetting process, would be for Mr. Clinton to separate himself from the activities of his foundation, including raising money.

"It's not just what he does or says - it's the fact that the foundation is involved with foreign countries, some of which might well be in conflict with U.S. policy," Mr. Mikva said. "It's more than a legal problem - there are ethical problems and appearance problems."

God bless that man. Abner Mikva is a national treasure, one that has lived long enough with a front row seat to history to cut through the bull and identify what is most important in these hours of decision.

Mikva has stirred the hornet's nest. His words got Politico's Ben Smith out of bed and on the phone with Chicago. Now hear this:

The transition communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, says Obama adviser Abner Mikva didn't speak for the campaign in a Times story that went online this evening, in which Mikva appeared to set an almost impossibly high bar for approving Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State....

A Democrat who saw the quotes suggested Mikva's words were Obama's way of walking back the suggestion that Senator Clinton could serve as secretary of state.

But Pfeiffer, asked if Mikva spoke for the campaign, responded, "no."

Mr. President-elect: You said, on November 7, that in making cabinet appointments you "would not be so rushed that you end up making mistakes."

Like so many of those here, below, at the grassroots base that refuse to believe the noise machine that seeks to demoralize us and make a lie of your own statement, if - and we say "if" because we have never believed the noise machine's spin, and that is why you are president-elect today - but if you are at all persuaded by the pressures upon you turn your foreign policy over to a media freak show, we invoke the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell to the Church of Scotland in 1650 when it sought alliance with the Crown: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Few are the voices - like the brave and wise Abner Mikva - with the wisdom and courage to stand up to the sycophants being rolled at present by the Mighty Wurlitzer!

Among us are David Ignatius, who writes in the Washington Post:

"The game changer in foreign policy is Barack Obama himself. Traveling in Europe earlier this month, I was stunned by the excitement he has aroused. The day after the election, the French newspaper "Le Monde" carried a cartoon atop its front page that showed Obama surfing a red, white and blue wave. Above him, it said: "Happy New Century!" You can sense the same enthusiasm around the world -- in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Even among the followers of radical groups, such as Hamas and the Taliban, Obama has inspired a sense of change and opportunity.

"Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that's hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options."

As Ignatius demonstrates, there are cases when what seems like and addition turns out to subtract from the overall sum of riches.

And Ken Silverstein with his Five Reasons Hillary Clinton should not be Secretary of State:

"The Clinton style of management-for example, pitting one faction of staff against another-would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail."

And Justin Raimundo of antiwar.com:

"Hillary opposed every significant peace initiative he put forward during the campaign, including a timetable to get us out of Iraq and direct negotiations with our adversaries. She derided this last - and very encouraging - stance as ‘naïve' and ‘dangerous.' Is this the person who will now be expected to take the lead in facilitating those talks?"

And since when have Raimundo and Marty Peretz been on the same page on any matter? Heed and listen:

"There have been so many Hillary Clintons that I suspect that none was authentic... I believe Barack is playing with fire."

You may not believe any of those people (I often disagree with some of them, but each of their words rings true in this case), and you may not believe me. We don't know yet if you do or not, and we will await the word from your lips before presuming anything. But surely you cannot ignore the words of the national treasure that is Judge Abner Mikva.

There are better uses and positions for someone of the undeniable talent of Senator Clinton in your cabinet, or even on the Supreme Court, but the discretion and diplomacy required of the next Secretary of State to undo the grave messes already created cannot, should not, must not be placed in the hands of someone who - even if it is through little or no fault of her own - is a magnet for the kind of media circus that the mere suggestion of her appointment has drawn already.

Do not wake up on January 21 - or soon after - with the words of the great Abner Mikva ringing in your ears, lamenting that you did not heed them when you could:

"It's more than a legal problem - there are ethical problems and appearance problems."

No Drama, Mr. President-elect, at this hour of the first crisis of your presidency-elect. Ethics matter, even when they do not play to the crowd, especially at those moments when few have the fortitude to consider them important and fight for them.

Do the right thing, Mr. President-elect. And in the absence of other voices that so far shrink from their public duties at this hour of moral crisis, I bid you: Good night. And good luck.

By Al Giordano

While pundits speculate on Obama's choice for Secretary of State (and there's some considerable backpedaling going on from yesterday's media fart) here's something for all sides to chew on... some hard historical data on how long they last.

President George W. Bush began in 2001 with high profile and popular Secretary of State in Colin Powell... who in in the beginning of Bush's second term in 2005 was replaced by Condoleezza Rice.

President Bill Clinton began in 1993 with an experienced State Department hand in Warren Christopher (who had twice briefly served in as acting secretary under President Carter)... who at the beginning of Clinton's second term was replaced by Madeleine Albright.

President George H. W. Bush served only one term beginning in 1989 and his good buddy James Baker lasted most of until August of 1992 (during the unsuccessful reelection campaign). Lawrence Eagleberger replaced him.

President Ronald Reagan began his term in 1981 with former presidential campaign rival Alexander Haig as Secretary of State. But after 18 months Haig realized that his wish for Kissinger-like powers (his mentor and predecessor had basically run foreign policy during President Nixon's weakest years and during President Ford's caretaker presidency) was not-to-be and Haig resigned in disgust. He was replaced by George Schultz.

President Jimmy Carter began his term in 1977 nominating Cyrus Vance as Secretary of State. Three years into the term Senator Edmund Muskie replaced him.

President Gerald Ford inherited Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State from President Nixon in 1974, but only served two years as president.

President Richard Nixon began his term in 1969 with William Rogers as Secretary of State. Nine months into his second term - too embattled to govern - Nixon replaced him with Henry Kissinger and essentially let him run US foreign policy.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk was the last Secretary of State to survive two terms (and two presidents: Kennedy and Johnson, from 1961 to 1969). However, his legacy is disgraced by his role in the Vietnam War.

President Dwight Eisenhower appointed John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State in 1953. Dulles lasted six years and then was replaced by Christian Herter.

President Harry Truman had three Secretaries of State over eight years, from 1945 to 1953. President Franklin Roosevelt had two over 13 years, so on and so forth...

I'll add that the only one of them that had a clue about human rights was Cyrus Vance, who, years prior, as undersecretary of defense had urged President Johnson to pull US troops out of Vietnam.

So what'll it be Mr. President-elect?

A Vance?

Or a Haig?

Also: Don't miss Field Hand Allan Brauer's diary at The Narcosphere about what's next after Proposition 8.