These are 4 inside the belt way pundits who were advocates of Susan Rice. They are angry. They are focusing that anger on McCain and Graham. However, only two people had any say in this decision - Rice and Obama.
Why are you posting this here - it has NOTHING to do with the op which is on John Kerry.
At the risk of seeming insensitive, I think that not everything revolves around race. Susan Rice was not hurt because she was black or a woman. Two of the last three SOSs were black and two out of the three were women. You could argue that white males were under represented!
I suspect that especially among Republicans in the Senate, the problem is that she has not worked to establish relationships with the Congress. (Stepping into dangerous areas, one thing I am reading between the lines is that she is a fairly typical fast track, high achievement person who is always focused on pleasing those higher up and was unhelpful and disinterested in anyone lower or a peer. This, incidentally, would explain the praise from Obama and Kerry (who she worked for in 2004). It is surprising that the Clintons were not there praising her. Could that be explained by HRC being on the security team with her? )
That lack of a good personal relationship made her the butt of their anger over what they think were lies - for political reasons immediately before an election. One question is why the State Department told their people NOT to speak on Benghazi and why the various intelligence people were not there. Was this an attempt to see if Rice could pass the test of doing these shows avoiding it blowing up into controversy?? If you think that unfair, there have been at least 10 or so things Kerry did - all excellently - that the media spoke of as "tests" - and he had FAR more experience than Rice ever had - so tests were less needed.
= new reply since forum marked as read