Filling the New Cabinet, Part II: State

The Contenders:

- Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM, 2003-present): Democratic Primary Candidate for President (2008); Secretary of Energy (1998-2001); United States Ambassador to the United Nations (1997-1998); US Representative from New Mexico (1983-1997); Staff, United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1975-1978); Staff, United States Department of State (1973-1975)

- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY, 2001-present): Democratic Primary Candidate for President (2008); First Lady of the United States (1992-2000); Board Member, Lafarge (1990–1992); Board Member, Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services (1988–1992); Board Member, Wal-Mart (1986–1992); Board Member, Children's Defense Fund (1986–1992); Board Member, TCBY (1985–1992); First Lady of the State of Arkansas (1978-1980, 1982-1992); Partner, Rose Law Firm (1979-1992); Attorney, Rose Law Firm (1976-1979)

- Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA, 1985-present): Democratic Nominee for President (2004); Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts (1983-1985); First Assistant District Attorney, Middlesex County, MA (1977-1982); United States Navy (1966-1970)

- Ambassador Richard Holbrooke: United States Ambassador to the United Nations (1999-2001); Special Presidential Envoy [private citizen, pro bono] (1997-1999); Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affiars (1994-1996); United States Ambassador to Germany (1992-1994); Managing Director, Lehman Brothers (1985-1993); Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (1977-1981); Campaign Coordinator for National Security Affairs to Governor Jimmy Carter (1976); Consultant, President’s Commission on the Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy (1974-1975); Managing Editor, Foreign Policy (1972-1976); Director, Peace Corps in Morocco (1970-1972); United States Foreign Service [served in Vietnam] (1962-1969)

Gov. Richardson

Bill Richardson has been the odds-on favorite for Secretary of State ever since Barack Obama selected Joe Biden as his running mate, and likely since Richardson exited the Democratic primary race on 10 January. Gov. Richardson subsequently endorsed Obama on 21 March, causing James Carville, a top Clinton advisor, to remark "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic." Gov. Richardson had served in two Cabinet positions in the Clinton administration.

Though Richardson's campaign suffered from his pigeonholing as "the forlorn candidate of the wonk set," his candidacy did serve to underscore his chops as a leader possessing practicality and foresight. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Richardson highlighted the following "six trends" as major points of focus for the United States in the next four years:

The first trend is fanatical jihadism bursting from an increasingly unstable and violent greater Middle East. This trend had been growing for years, but the invasion and collapse of Iraq have greatly fueled its rise. A second trend transforming the world (in ways still not well understood by the public) is the growing power and sophistication of criminal networks capable of disrupting the global economy and trafficking in WMD.

...

A third trend transforming the world is the rapid rise of Asian economic and military power. India and China are destined to be global powers in the decades ahead -- one as a democracy, the other not. And a fourth trend is the reemergence of Russia as an assertive global and regional player with a large nuclear arsenal and control over energy resources -- and one tempted by authoritarianism and militant nationalism. The rise of India and China and the reemergence of Russia call for U.S. strategic leadership to integrate these powerful nuclear-armed nations into a stable global order.

A fifth trend transforming our world is the increase in global economic interdependence and financial imbalances without the sufficient growth of institutional capacities to manage these realities. Globalization has made every country's economy more vulnerable to resource constraints and financial shocks that originate beyond its borders. A global energy crisis or a sudden collapse of the U.S. dollar could do great damage to the world economy.

The sixth trend we face is that of grave global environmental and health problems. Climate change and pandemics such as AIDS do not respect national borders. Poverty, ethnic conflict, and overpopulation spill over national boundaries, feeding into a growing underground economy of money launderers, counterfeiters, and smugglers of drugs, arms, and human beings.

Richardson, who brokered the cease-fire in Darfur, also understand the significance of maintaining diplomatic relations. In the same article, he noted:

The United States needs to stop considering diplomatic engagement with others to be a reward for good behavior. The Bush administration's long refusal to engage diplomatically regimes such as Pyongyang and Tehran only encouraged and strengthened their most paranoid and hard-line tendencies. Both governments, not surprisingly, responded to Washington's snubs and threats about "regime change" by intensifying their nuclear programs.

...

We need to stop the saber rattling and instead work tirelessly with the international community to impose severe multilateral sanctions. The Iranians must know that they have no future as a nuclear weapons power: the international community will stand united behind painful sanctions. But they also must know that they will receive benefits similar to those that Libya received if they renounce uranium enrichment. If they meet international security standards, sanctions will end, and they will have guaranteed access to fuel enriched and banked elsewhere.

Moreover, Richardson has shown that he has the ability to prevail in difficult negotiations with unfriendly states:

In 1995, [Peter] Bourne helped get access to Saddam Hussein, and in July of that year he and Richardson travelled to Baghdad together to secure the release of two American aerospace workers who had been captured by the Iraqis after wandering over the Kuwaiti border. Richardson and Bourne subsequently collaborated on a number of such efforts in Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kenya, and North Korea, where Richardson helped win the release of an American lay preacher who had crossed to the wrong side of the border.

During the Democratic primary, and with the endorsement of the Bush administration, Richardson made his sixth visit to North Korea to discuss the country's nuclear program.

Gov. Richardson hasn't always been an effective leader. As Secretary of Energy he drew considerable criticism from both Democrats and Republicans for his handling of the nuclear espionage affair at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. David Plotz, writing for Slate at the time, suggested Richardson was mismatched in his role as Energy Secretary:

Running DOE is like herding rattlesnakes. Each of its responsibilities is worse than the next: holding down gas prices, bullying OPEC, building nuclear weapons, protecting secrets about those weapons, disposing of waste from those weapons, apologizing to all the employees made sick by those weapons, etc. The job requires vast technical knowledge, an ability to navigate a labyrinthine bureaucracy, high tolerance for the whimsical behavior of scientists, and a heavy interest in hands-on management.

But it does not much concern Richardson's supreme talent: personal politics. In the United States today, only Bill Clinton is a better natural politician.

...

Clinton passed over Richardson for the Cabinet in 1992, but the president and the congressman, each recognizing a kindred spirit, became fast friends. Soon Clinton deputized Richardson to act as an unofficial U.S. negotiator with thugs and monsters. In the mid-'90s, Richardson freed a U.S. helicopter pilot downed over North Korea, a pair of Americans who inadvertently crossed into Iraq, an American jailed in Bangladesh, and three aid workers held hostage in Sudan, among others. He was dispatched to butter up Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, Haiti's military dictators, and Burma's tyrants.

Richardson courted the despots with the same rumpled, hail-fellow-well-met manner that won him friends at home. He played up his friendship with the president, flattered the hostage-holders, listened to them graciously, ate their food, told self-deprecating jokes, and cajoled them with promises of good press and American sympathy. He was magic. Sudanese rebel Kerubino Kwanyin Bol was intransigent till Richardson asked to visit Kerubino's child, who was dying of measles. That request melted the warlord, who dropped his ransom demand from $2.5 million to a few jeeps and some rice. Richardson's missions won him three Nobel Peace Prize nominations.

In 1997, Richardson brought his retail style to the United Nations. He worked the cafeteria, shaking every hand he could find. He admiringly called Kofi Annan "a political animal" and pegged Laurent Kabila, with whom he negotiated Congo's peace agreement, as "a street-smart Chicago ward heeler."

Richardson's career, in short, testifies to the power of the schmooze. Unlike Clinton, he doesn't marry schmoozing to wonkery. He is weak on policy, often skipping complicated discussions for a cigar and a party. He has no great beliefs, which may be why he didn't mind flattering despots. In Richardson's world, personal relationships may trump principles, and friendships may supersede treaties.

Richardson had excellent careerist reasons to take the Energy job: DOE has a huge presence in New Mexico. Energy secretary, unlike U.N. ambassador, is a real Cabinet post with real authority. And it positioned him perfectly for veep: a personable Hispanic with legislative, international, and executive experience.

For a while, Richardson eluded the Energy Curse that had tarnished the careers of Hazel O'Leary, Federico Peña, and almost everyone else who'd been secretary. Arriving in the midst of the Wen Ho Lee scandal, he calmed Congress by tightening security. He launched a pilot project to dispose of nuclear weapon waste, something his predecessors could never manage. This spring, his in-your-face diplomacy persuaded OPEC to boost oil production, which halted hikes in U.S. gas prices (though Richardson does not seem to have any short-term fix for the current gas price spike).

But the Los Alamos farce is showing why political savvy alone is limited as a governing strategy.

...

Richardson happily played the shambling, self-deprecating genial fellow when he was lobbying for the release of hostages. But he is discovering, painfully, that there is a difference between playing the fool and being the fool.

If his extensive subsequent writing on foreign policy and current reputation for dry, even wonkish, public speaking are indications are that Richardson has learned a valuable lesson in policy and preparedness from his experience as Secretary of Energy, then his past performance as a diplomat indeed does commend him for the position of Secretary of State.

Sen. Clinton

I don't understand the reasoning behind NBC's Andrea Mitchell's report that Senator Clinton is under consideration for Secretary of State. In the brutally contested Democratic Primary, Hillary Rodham Clinton tried from the very beginning every strategy her team could come up with to paint Barack Obama as a neophyte, particularly in realm of foreign policy. There was the inexperience meme, which brought us the 3AM phone call ad and the Clinton-concocted Commander-in-Chief Threshold:

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

If the above is to be believed, Clinton likely passed her Commander-in-Chief Threshold when she took a trip to war-torn Bosnia during her husband's administration:

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Confronted with CBS News video tape which completely contradicts her sensational version of the events, Clinton responded:

"I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement."

Encouraging words for any foreign leader who would sit down with her at the bargaining table.

Though Clinton claimed her role as President Clinton's wife gave her significant experience in foreign affairs, the Obama campaign was skeptical, stating:

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

...

Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

The Obama campaign then went on to categorically debunk Clinton's claims of high-level diplomacy in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rawanda, and China.

Beyond her liberties with the truth regarding her role as First Lady, once Clinton was actually elected to public office, her voting record on foreign policy began to reveal her dismal judgment. Since taking office, Hillary Clinton voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, has refused to apologize or indicate that she felt she’d made a mistake, instead:

[Clinton] settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.

Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

- The New York Times, 18 Feb 2007

Worse still, Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which not only classified the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization, but created the opportunity for what Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) called "a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action" against Iran. When confronted over her vote by former Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK), who single-handedly read the Pentagon Papers into public record, Clinton laughed.

But most damning of all is the fact that, in the days preceding the vote on the Iraq War Resolution, Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate provided for her by the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

A new book about Sen. Hillary Clinton says she did not read the NIE, a document so highly classified that even her senior staff did not have access to it at the time.

Blitzer asked Clinton on Sunday whether she regretted not having read it.

"Wolf, I was thoroughly briefed," Clinton said. "I knew all the arguments. I knew all of what the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department were all saying. And I sought dissenting opinions, as well as talking to people in previous administrations and outside experts."

...

But former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the Intelligence committee at the time, has said he read the NIE. And Graham says that not only did he read it — it is what moved him to vote against authorizing Bush to invade Iraq.

The information Senator Graham is referring to is likely the dissenting opinion offered by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, an intelligence analysis arm of the State Department:

The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.

That Clinton did not read the intelligence document - regardless of what it contained - before casting her vote indicates that she is an entirely unacceptable, contemptible, and frankly disturbing choice for Secretary of State. In light of this information, the only two jobs she is likely less qualified for are Secretary of Defense and President of the United States.

Finally, a note about the political considerations of offering the Clinton control of Foggy Bottom. One blogger, writing of the potential of President-elect Obama appointing a highly respected Republican like Senator Chuck Hagel or Senator Dick Lugar to the post, said:

We can’t screw around with bipartisan appeasement on such a crucial, crucial post. This isn’t the time for a political gambit, even if it does have some good intentions behind it.

The same could be said for offering the post to Senator Clinton as a gesture of unity to her and her extremely partisan PUMA [Party Unity My Ass] supporters. Barack Obama won the election and is the new leader of the Democratic Party. As such, he should be under no obligation to the Clintons' faction of the party, and instead should move forward with his vision of the party's future. Selecting Hillary Rodham Clinton for any Cabinet position would definitely not be change we can believe in.

Sen. Kerry

There are two reasons which rationalize President-elect Obama potentially offering John Kerry an appointment as Secretary of State. Unfortunately, neither of them have anything to do with Senator Kerry's record on foreign policy. First, it was Sen. Kerry who pushed for Obama's selection as Keynote Speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Second, Senator Kerry endorsed Obama the day after his loss in the New Hampshire primary and gave him access to his donor database, which proved helpful in Obama's fundraising efforts against the Clinton machine. There is no question that Kerry has been a political benefactor of Obama's, and that he could continue to promote the new administration's policies in the United States:

Furthermore, longtime observers say, Kerry’s political instincts could be an asset. Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a grant-making foundation for non-proliferation studies, said Kerry’s experience in the Senate — and as a presidential nominee — taught him the importance of building domestic support for an administration’s foreign policy. “He combines foreign-policy expertise with political instincts,” Cirincione said. “He understands it’s not enough to have the right policy, but to deliver the policy and build support for that policy.”

...

“Kerry would be a great secretary of state,” said Cirincione. “One of the best things that ever happened to him was to realize he’s not going to be president. It freed him up, and let Kerry be Kerry. His insights and statements over the last couple of years are some of the best work he’s ever done.”

Kerry might have proved an effective political ally, whether on the campaign trail or in promoting a policies in the domestic arena, but as a diplomat on the international scene he is less appealling. Stephen Morse, writing for The Australian, an admittedly center-right (for Australia) newspaper, lamented Kerry's "dour demeanor, pedantic personality, and history of being on both sides of an issue."

Dissatisfaction with Kerry's character isn't confined to conservatives. One liberal blogger writes:

We also need a person of courage and decisiveness as Secretary of State. When an audience member at once of Kerry’s speeches was electrically shocked (Tased) by police simply for stating his opinion, Kerry said nothing. This moment could have been one of historical change in the fight against Tasing of Americans for political speech. Instead, it showed Kerry’s lack of backbone.

Kerry is not a man of courage. He is an inveterate public bumbler whose would only bring highly public embarrassment to President-elect Obama if Kerry were nominated.

The incident, of course, is the infamous Andrew Meyer tasing at the University of Florida. Nick Antosca of the Huffington Post wrote at the time:

Second, John Kerry did not handle this well at all. I liked him all right before -- I voted for him, but what were the alternatives? -- but now I really dislike the man. His behavior here is pathetic. Listen to him droning sonorously on in the background as a guy is dragged down the aisles and pinned the ground. He does say something like, "Officers, can we--" but then trails off ineffectually... and you can also hear him make what sounds like a joke about Meyer: "...unfortunately he's not available to come up here and swear me in as President..." At that point, fair enough, maybe it didn't seem as bad from the stage as it looks on the video. But then the guy is screaming in pain, and Kerry is still droning on, not agitated, nothing. He should have gotten off the stage and told the cops to get the hell off that guy. It's not what a politician would do, but it's what a fucking man would do.

Senator Kerry has expressed a very unsettling views on nuclear arms reduction, expressing desire for a world without nuclear weapons. While this is certainly an admirable wish, it is hardly realistic or even sane foreign policy. In a world where nuclear weapons are increasingly sought after by hostile and often repressive nations as status symbols and bargaining chips, the United States needs to maintain a viable nuclear deterrent and strategic strike capability. The Pandora's Box of nuclear weaponry has been open for over fifty-three years, and it is simply unreasonable, and even foolhardy, to expect nuclear-capable nations to mutually disarm while maintaining non-proliferation across the rest of the world. The next Secretary of State will of necessity be a realist, as the State Department has enough problems to address without attempting a policy of nuclear utopianism.

More troubling still is Senator Kerry's defense of Hillary Clinton after it was learned that she had not read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate mentioned above:

"It really depends frankly on what the total exposure to the intelligence is," said Kerry. "You don't have to read the NIE, honestly, if you've been briefed, if you sat in on hearings, if you have some familiarity with the topic."

Clinton has said she was thoroughly briefed on the National Intelligence Estimate despite not having read it herself. Kerry, meanwhile, read the summary of the report and got much of his intelligence straight from senior administration officials.

On Monday, the Massachusetts Democrat declined to take what he deemed a chance to score political points against Clinton over the NIE.

"It really depends on the total picture and I'm not familiar with the total picture of what her due diligence was in this regard," he said. "It is helpful [to read the NIE] but it doesn't really tell you the whole picture."

Once again, Senator Graham would clearly disagree. Just as Clinton's willful ignorance of the NIE's content should permanently disqualify her from any position with influence over national security, so should John Kerry be barred from holding similar positions as long as he believes disregarding vital intelligence reports to be acceptable behavior.

Mr. Holbrooke

A career diplomat who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize as the chief architect of the Dayton Peace Accords, Mr. Holbrooke, the outgoing Ambassador to the United Nations, said on 11 January 2001:

"Saddam Hussein's activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world," Holbrooke continued, "not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime.

"His willingness to be cruel internally is not unique in the world, but the combination of that and his willingness to export his problems makes him a clear and present danger at all times," he said.

Any American still sensitive to the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" should sit up and take notice. This is a very senior Clinton Administration official claiming Saddam Hussein had WMD capabilities in 2001, something directly contradicted by the 2002 NIE and the whole of Operation Iraqi Freedom. What's even more troubling after the last eight years is that Holbrooke sounds like a neoconservative:

Richard Holbrooke triggers incredible passion, some of it negative, among foreign policy professionals. He's a Democrat, but many don't understand why he's not a Republican. Dems, some argue, are supposed to be about achieving moral goods in the world along purist pathways of good behavior and enlightened intentions. To some Holbrooke seems to be someone willing to deploy any tools that it takes to achieve his (and America's) ends, and that puts him at odds with many in the so-called global justice community.

I'm going to frustrate a number of my friends -- but the veneer and appearance of moral flexibility is why I very much like Richard Holbrooke. In a way, he's a Kissinger applied to moral purposes.
...

Successful heads of state -- inspirational and committed to international peace and progress or not -- often have strategists and global arm-twisters at their side along the lines of a Holbrooke, a Brzezinski, or a Kissinger. They are masters of gray in a world of leaders and citizens who prefer black and white. They wrestle with the highly improbable and generate possibilities. Holbrooke did this in the Dayton Accords. They are ruthless, shrewd, and morally elastic in hitting their targets.

Granted, the United States needs to play hardball with countries like North Korea and Iran. However, is the best person for the job of administering American foreign policy someone who is "ruthless, shrewd, and morally elastic?" In a profile published on 03 April 2008, TIME called Holbrooke "America's toughest diplomatic tactician ... alternately ingratiating and bullying on the surface but strategically minded beneath."

Steve Clemons of The Washington Note [cited above] seems to concur with this, noting:

Barack Obama needs someone in close proximity on his foreign policy team that the world knows is tenaciously committed to outcomes and that it fears just a bit. Obama needs to be about hope, about light -- but he needs someone who can pursue and defend American interests against thugs in the dark.

In my view, Obama needs a Holbrooke-type player on his team. The world is a far more dangerous place today than it was eight years ago. The global equilibrium that used to exist was decimated when George W. Bush punctured the mystique of American power by invading Iraq and showing our now financial and military limits to allies and foes alike. Obama needs a Holbrooke -- and since Holbrooke himself is available, he should strongly consider making him Secretary of State.

The world has good reason to fear Mr. Holbrooke. It appears that he has at least one major diplomatic indiscretion in his past, involving aiding and abetting geonocide and its perpetrators.

It appears that, as a consequence of the Dayton Accords, Mr. Holbrooke aided Radovan Karadžić, former President of Republika Srpska and Bosnian Serb war criminal, in evading prosecution at theInternational Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Karadžić, a fugitive for twelve years, is charged with the genocide of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica (the single worst atrocity in Europe since the end of World War II) and war crimes against Bosniaks, Croats, other non-Serbs, and non-nationalist Serbs during the siege of Sarajevo (05 April 5 1992-29 February 1996). Karadžić claims:

"Mr [Richard] Holbrooke undertook on behalf of the USA that I would not be tried before this tribunal..."

...

"The offer was as follows: I must withdraw not only from public but also from party offices and completely disappear from the public arena, not give interviews and not even publish literary works, in a word, become invisible long enough for the Dayton agreement to be implemented in full."

Holbrooke's rejoinder was simply an ad hominem attack on Karadžić:

"It's an old story by one of the worst mass murderers in the world, and it's completely untrue," Holbrooke said in a phone interview. "There was no deal. It would have been immoral, illegal and disgraceful."

...

Holbrooke said the rumor of a deal was "given marginal credibility because NATO failed to capture him, but that doesn't mean there was a deal."

However, a "unambiguous political deal" between Karadžić and Holbrooke was confirmed by former Bosnian foreign minster Mohammad Sacirbey, citing Robert Frowick, American head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's mission in Bosnia in 1996 as his source.

Conclusion

Of the likely candidates mentioned above, the clear choice is Richardson, who not only has proven himself as an expert negotiator in the past, but doesn't appear to have blood on his hands (Holbrooke), hasn't shown himself to be criminally negligent (Clinton), or pusillanimous (Kerry).