Last edited Mon May 9, 2016, 12:54 PM - Edit history (2)
One reason is that he has important things to do in his current job that no one could pick up if he was named and as the SoS can not be involved in politics he would have to.
The second reason is that the VP typically becomes the attack dog. At this point in his career, Kerry has a wonderful legacy - probably preventing war with the Iran deal and being an essential person in getting both the Climate pact with China and the Paris climate pact. Do you seriously think that he should put himself in the position of defending HRC?
The third reason is that he is 72 years old - no matter how energetic and healthy he is. This means that a main reason to want to be VP is not realistic. He will be 80 in 8 years.
The fourth reason is that the VP has few real roles and it has always been clear that he is not someone in the Clinton coterie - thus he could end up with very little power. Not to mention, he could not even control what he gets to work on. Consider that for ANY Clinton VP, they are not really number 2, there will be Bill Clinton before them.
He has two great examples of people who through philanthropy have accomplished some pretty impressive things outside the government. Teresa helped create change on green building and on many health issues. His daughter Vanessa has done amazing work through her Seed organization that is having US doctors train medical staff in under developed countries.
I hope that he writes an autobiography and a serious book on his foreign policy philosophy, which he has developed over a life time and which never was a regurgitation of what others in the foreign policy establishment wrote. When speaking to kids at take your kids to work day, he pointed out that it was not legal for him to be contacting anyone for an after SoS job, but he went on to say that he would not suddenly become inactive on things like climate change.
I can see him allying with the UN/a prestigious university (possibly including teaching a course!)/or an NPO. His name, reputation, and his skills would allow him to continue to make contributions.
All those things seem more interesting than signing on to be Clinton's VP. (Not to mention, note that Clinton gives him credit for almost nothing in her biography - including when he kept Kharzi in line and (very oddly) on negotiating the chemical weapons out of Syria. You might also note that she took the lion's share of credit on the Iran deal and climate change deals. On the latter two, think how uncomfortable it would be to have to back that in the general elections -- when you have to know these are things he put his mind, heart, soul and gut into making happen.)
= new reply since forum marked as read