I don't think Carol for Seceretary of State is a splendid idea or a straightforward yahoo group for wouldbe supporters, but you're making some provocative assertions so I'm going to jump in here.
In actual fact the
resume of Ms. Braun compares favorably to
that of Ms. Rice. On what grounds? I'll spell it out for you. Rice's ideas were tired before she ever got around to thinking them. That kind of mentalilty doesn't do much to address our real national security concerns in this day and age--if it ever did. Rice is on board as the token academic. But let's be honest about her accomplishments, shall we? One does not get to be provost of Stanford or a Bush appointee by dint of brilliant analytics and erudition. In terms of actual qualifications, a position as a defense liason to our embassy in Romania would not have been inappropriate for Ms. Rice.
Braun by contrast has had to struggle to achieve most of her positions in life. Even her confirmation as ambassador was hard won (more on that in a minute). Her consultuncies came after years of service in relevant fields. While in the Senate she also served on Finance and the Judiciary, btw. Why not Foreign Relations? Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that her archrival Jesse Helms chaired that committee. I don't know. But it is clear that she took a keen interest in foreign affairs, and international law in particular.
Now, about this business of snuggling up to Nigerian regimes, Ms. Braun never snuggled up to Sani Abacha, and never did anything with respect to Nigeria that ran contrary to US strategic interests. Ask Bill Richardson. Ask any member of the Foreign Relations Committee that confirmed her ambassadorship--that'd be anybody except Helms. Ask Bill Clinton or Al Gore. Carol's great snuggly crime was to befriend the wife of a despot. And beyond that, what? That she favored a rational and pragmatic approach to effecting democratic change in Nigeria? You would make it seem as if she opposed all sanctions and didn't care one whit for people's suffering under military rule. But for one to make that case, one must resort to insunating facts that aren't in evidence, and ignoring facts that are as plain as day. Can you, for example, name one US Senator in the Twentieth Century who did more to recognize and uphold the legal rights of Nigerian women than did Carol Moseley Braun? Maybe you think you can, but it's a tough case, and I'll gladly argue it. Because at the end of the day the case against Braun just doesn't add up--unless you're somekind of "wingnut" who doesn't give a darn about facts and figures and all that stuff.
Again, I don't think Carol being appointed Secretary of State is such a grand idea. But let's think about it for a moment. What kind of Secretary of State is Colin Powell? In large part that's defined by the administration he's serving in. Think about it. If the central objective of your government is to wage war left and right and steal enough oil to fill seven seas, well then, Colin Powell is just the kind of person you would want running the State Department. For papering over murderous policy and softselling wars of aggression, he's the man you want. If. on the other hand, you want to promote peace and justice, if you believe in Annan's vision of the UN. if you accept the Millenium goals for the developing world, if you think the real problems we face are poverty and disease and environmental degredation and the way to tackle them is through international cooperation, if you think knowledge and understanding accomplish more for us than bombs and bribery, then Colin Powell would not be at the top of your list for Secretary of State. Carol, however, would be. So the question of qualifications really comes down to what kind of governement you want to put together, and what you hope to accomplish by it.