Who Do You Think Should Run for Kerry’s Seat?

After President Obama’s selection of John Kerry as Secretary of State, there’s a lot of interest in the senior senator’s seat.

With U.S. Senator John Kerry as President Barack Obama’s pick for Secretary of State, it’s anyone’s guess who will run for the seat in a special election next summer. Kerry was nominated by Obama on Dec. 21.

If Kerry is appointed, Governor Deval Patrick will appoint an interim senator, who will be named to the position before the special election. 

Names have already been dropped locally and from afar, including actor and Cambridge native Ben Affleck, who said he is not interested in running for the seat Kerry has held since 1985.

Last week, Congressman Edward Markey announced he would make a run for it. Markey is the first prominent candidate to officially announce his interest in Kerry’s seat. Kerry and Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, both said Markey would make a fine senator.

The Boston Globe reported last week that both Democratic Congressmen Michael Capuano of Somerville and Stephen Lynch of South Boston have expressed interest in running, but neither have made any decisions or announcements yet. 

There is also speculation that outgoing Senator Scott Brown will run on the Republican side. 

Only time will tell who will be throwing their hat in the ring. 

So, you tell us. Who do you think should run for John Kerry’s seat once he’s officially nominated Secretary of State? Tell us in our comments section below.

Daniel F. Devine January 06, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Still can't get over that Elizabeth Warren is the Junior Senator of Massachusetts. I guess it figures in a State that loves the likes of Barack Obama & Barney Frank. I presume the Massachusetts Voters will elect another Phoney to fill Kerrys seat. What's wrong with people? ~ God help us!
Avon Barksdale January 06, 2013 at 10:50 PM
I'm so sorry that your candidate lost the election. Show us on the doll where the liberals hurt you.
David Kent January 06, 2013 at 10:55 PM
Daniel, I guess you're not very comfortable with Democracy if your guy loses, huh? In a Democracy, your side wins some and it loses some. Time to buck up and accept that Daniel.
Daniel F. Devine January 07, 2013 at 12:11 AM
@Avon & David ~ Scott Brown wasn't "my candidate" or "my guy" but surely was a much better choice in my humble opinion than the obvious "PHONEY" & "CARPET BAGGER" Elizabeth Warren. The majority rules & this is Massachusetts & I accept that. Thank God I'm a senior citizen & hopefully won't be around to see the complete destruction & demise of the country that I love, was Born in, Raised in, Served Honorably in the Military & "WORKED" all my life in.
paul January 07, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Why not give the lady a chance Daniel? Are you so brainwashed by your right wing beliefs that you can't give Senator Warren a chance? She's the first female senator from Massachusetts, you should be proud that the rest of Massachusetts got it right.
David Kent January 07, 2013 at 01:02 AM
Hey, I have a question Daniel: Did you grow up in a country where, over the previous 3 decades the wealth of the top couple of percent skyrocketed at an inflation adjusted 270% while the incomes of the rest of us rose at just 40%? That’s what the CBO says has happened in this country since the beginning of the Reagan Revolution. Until last week Scott Brown did everything in his power to protect the incomes of the wealthiest Americans and next to nothing to help the rest of us. Now I don’t claim to understand Warren’s approach in detail, but she ran on helping the middle class. And I think she should be given a chance to deliver on that. You know, it confounds me how hard working middle class people like you can support members of a party so blatantly tied to the wealthy. To the wealthy, that is, over the needs of the rest of us.
David Nolta January 07, 2013 at 01:14 AM
Dennis, I have to confess that being referenced is a weakness of mine. Thank you!
Richard W. Lunt January 07, 2013 at 01:40 AM
David Kent, The economic collapse of 2008 wasn't because of George W. Bush. The House and the Senate were controlled by Democrats , the ones who hold the purse strings, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and their cronies. The Democrats had complete control of Congress from 2007 to 2011 and had complete control of the Senate from since 2007. George W. Bush was a lame duck President during those years and couldn't get anything done to improve the economy because of the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The Democrats are to blame for the economic downfall as I said before and the major reason not minor, but MAJOR reason was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Avon Barksdale January 07, 2013 at 01:59 AM
Oh God, the "Barney Frank Destroyed The Economy Oh Look I Have Some Quotes From What He Said When He Was A Minority Member Of A Finance Committee He Was The Reason Fannie Mae Collapsed" lunacy comes out. I honestly thought that Richard was a made-up character, an online puppet used by some liberal/Democrat to make conservatives/Republicans look as stupid as humanly possible. But no, he's a real unemployed dingbat from southeast Mass, yes people like this do exist and walk among us.
David Nolta January 07, 2013 at 02:00 AM
Richard--Did you read your own link??? How many of those worthy unemployed have been out of work for more than four years? A LOT! And things are getting better, according to your very own link!
Doug Melanson January 07, 2013 at 02:14 AM
Wow, alot of people on here that let thier jealousy for the wealthy cloud thier judgement. If you remove the jealousy an see that the rich are not evil but the ones who helped build this country by paving roads and buildng our power stations etc. and they make our lives easier with the things they invent. The job creators that by doing so mak sure we live better lives, helthier lives because thier companies give insurance to employees. So many jealous people. it is ashame. Nothing is free. How about working for things?
David Nolta January 07, 2013 at 02:23 AM
Richard--You DO understand that control of Congress is not a simple matter of simple majorities, right? The Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, from 2001-2007--and you don't think that has anything to do with our economic problems today? Are you having a laugh? http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-for-two.html
Doug Melanson January 07, 2013 at 02:56 AM
I mean Markey is a resident of Mass we can find it out very easy with an online search. You can find anyones address it is easy. I think Brown was kidding when he said that.
Richard W. Lunt January 07, 2013 at 03:01 AM
David, From 2001 to 2007 the unemployment rate was low and people had good paying jobs, thanks to the sound fiscal conservative Republican policies of the Bush administration and both Republican controlled House and Senate. http://scottstanzel.com/2010/06/04/unemployment-rate-during-president-bush/
David Nolta January 07, 2013 at 03:09 AM
I certainly agree that President Clinton left President Bush with a pretty healthy economy. Most Republicans acknowledge that... And a surplus, etc. Now, do you acknowledge that the economy plunged under Bush's warmongering, rich-pampering regime, or not? That is, BEFORE President Obama was elected (the first time)? And yet, you blame Mr. Obama constantly in your comments above... Even though for all but four months of his presidency he has not had a real (filibuster-proof) majority in Congress. See link above. But we agree, the unemployment rate was low in 2001. We just disagree as to why it rose, before President Obama was elected (the first time--I just like saying that).
Avon Barksdale January 07, 2013 at 03:12 AM
David, Richard has a problem with the whole cause-and-effect concept. It's what keeps people from coming to the realization that Ronald Reagan didn't smash through the Berlin Wall in a bulldozer driven by the Pope, and that Saddam's statue wasn't toppled over by hordes of jubilant Iraqi freedome fighters relishing their first taste of liberty.
Richard W. Lunt January 07, 2013 at 03:19 AM
David, From my previous post, I did read that link; however, that doesn't necessarily mean that employment has improved, they just don't count the 16 percent of people who have given up looking for work because of the lack of good paying jobs. How has employment improved??? It's an employer's market not an employee's market which means the competition for good paying white collar jobs is extremely tight, and the rest of the jobs out there are low paying 10 dollar an hour retail, service and manufacturing jobs in the private sector. The rest of the jobs are either union construction or government jobs which aren't tailored for everyone. That's not an improved job market, it's lousy, no thanks to the Democrats and their policies.
David Nolta January 07, 2013 at 03:20 AM
Oh Avon, I wish I'd said that!
David Nolta January 07, 2013 at 03:25 AM
To recapitulate, Richard: You think that the promising employment figures reported under President Obama are not to be believed, but those reported at the outset of President Bush's term are to be credited, even though he inherited a good economy from President Clinton (if you can believe anybody). You think that the Republicans, who have continued to control the House for two years, and for most of the past twelve, bear no responsibility for the employment problems we all acknowledge. Hmmmm.
Richard W. Lunt January 07, 2013 at 03:47 AM
I will admit that the unemployment figures are lousy and could be alot better; however, the Bush era tax cuts are helping although it's at a slow pace; however, by taxing the rich job creators, there is a risk of falling back into a recession, maybe not though. The rich, under the fiscal cliff deal are only paying 39% instead of 35% and it's only a few percentage points. It would be drastic if the rich were paying between 70% to 90% in taxes. When the full effects of Obamacare come into play, that may very well put the economy back into a recession because Obamacare is the biggest tax increase on the middle class which is why I would prefer someone such as Scott Brown or Bill Weld to be our next Senator, we need a balanced approach to what President Obama and the Democrats are doing to the country.
David Kent January 07, 2013 at 03:56 AM
Richard, Are you a comic writer? You should be. So tell me this: If the economy collapses in an almost unprecedented way before Obama leaves office, you'll cover for him, right? As I said Richard: Extremely funny!
David Kent January 07, 2013 at 04:00 AM
Avon, There's no doubt that Barney Frank was the most powerful minority member of a House committee in U.S. history. Well, at least to hear the Bush/GOP apologists talk! Back when I used to debate this seriously with conservatives I used to ask them where the majority was on the Banking committee when Barney was doing all of his skullduggery. Where was the Committee chair? Apparently Barney gave them sleeping sickness!! Yes, there's no end to the delusion it there. They're good for laughs though.
David Kent January 07, 2013 at 04:05 AM
Boy DGM, you really have memorized the GOP play book haven't you. Who said the rich were evil? You, that's who. Nobody else. Now read this slowly: One can avoid jealously of the rich AND be concerned about unhealthy distribution of wealth in society. Those are not the same things. If you think about it a bit you may see it. In the meantime, keep studying those GOP talking points.
David Nolta January 07, 2013 at 05:02 AM
But the details, Richard, and the evidence of these bad things that Democrats do! Those details, that evidence, should come BEFORE your conclusion. For example, your claim that the Bush tax cuts, which I find scandalous, and doubly scandalous as they coincided with an utterly unnecessary and dishonest war--how have they helped the country, the economy, or anybody but the rich by and for whom they were created? And the ongoing, explicit resolve of Republican leaders NOT to compromise with President Obama on anything? That seems to me at worst shameful and destructive; it's plainly un-American; at the very least, it's no pitch for balance... I myself am so grateful that we have elected representatives working for health care for all citizens, for the rights of women and minorities, for an intelligent and fair distribution of our national resources, for education, for an increased, scientifically-sanctioned treatment of our shared environment, etc... These are the issues which lead me to support the politicians that I do. Scott Brown is okay on some of these issues. Elizabeth Warren was better on most of them. I hope that whoever we find to elect to the late Senator Kennedy's seat is clear and right on all of them, and more.
David Kent January 07, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Richard gives a fantastic example of conservative memory lapse: They remember 2001 to 2007 when the economy was fair to middling under Bush. I mean, no hing to compare to the 2nd half of Clinton, but by today's standards Shangrilah. But then suddenly, the memory blocks out 2008. Hmmm..... why could that be? Could it be because Bush's supposedly wise policies led to complete implosion of the economy? In that one year, this country lost all of its economic progress from 1990 forward and for some reason conservatives can't remember that ! Then, of course, the memory returns on Januray 20, 2009 with Obama holding the bag and it's all HIS fault. That's conservative memory for you. How convenient, huh?
Daniel F. Devine January 07, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Since the advent of President Johnson's "Great Society" began Trillions of dollars have been $pent trying to eliminate poverty, with the opposite effect happening as more people are now living under the poverty level than in the 1960's. In fact OBAMA (another Democrat) has $pent more toward welfare programs in 2010 alone, which is MORE than A L L the money used during the Bush Presidency for the Iraq War. Extensive fraud and abuse thrive and are rampant in A L L of these programs and NOTHING seems to be done to eliminate the corruption and misuse of these programs. Which is why I'm for "Hope & Change" ~ CHANGE the current politicians (Democrat or Republican) and HOPE things improve although I think the damage is done and nothing can or will be done. Hmmmm.
Avon Barksdale January 07, 2013 at 01:20 PM
Whoa, Ted Kennedy is dead?
Borden Wicks January 07, 2013 at 02:49 PM
no, but it means you shouldn't win!
Tree Hugger January 07, 2013 at 03:32 PM
I find it disheartening that Mr. Nolta is allowed to antagonize fellow posters and get their comments banned. Now that the comments are erased, its not possible for anyone to read them, but I feel as if an injustice was done. I care for the environment, and Mr. Nolta took my screen name and misconstrued it into something inappropriate for his own perverse pleasure, and yet my comments were removed as well? Does Mr. Nolta work for Patch? He seems well connected. And I'm getting the impression I'm not the 1st person he has attempted to intellectually bully.
Mary MacDonald (Editor) January 07, 2013 at 03:36 PM
I removed several comments on this thread this morning in which posters went back and forth, insulting each other, and antagonizing each other. Please keep comments directed at the topic of the article, which is who should take John Kerry's seat, and not each other.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »