SoS Kerry has voted against Keystone and everything in his background would make him PERSONALLY want to speak against this - I suspect especially after the Arkansas spill. (In addition, I hope Teresa is asking him to stay true to what he knows is right.)
On the other side, it is very clear that there are significant powers that are pushing for this. In addition, Obama has given approvals for parts of it. We know that HRC was for it -- and we know the people she picked to study it were not unbiased scientists. Assume that Obama has already decided not to spend political capital on this AND the green groups have not been activist enough to put a price on the other side.
Do you want -
1) Kerry to go with his conscience (knowing the last few times he went against his gut - IWR and Edwards, his gut was absolutely right.) AND have Obama overrule him and take whatever heat he gets alone.
2) Kerry realizes that the last 3 years have boxed Obama in and to ignore his own reputation (one that he earned over 4 decades as an environmentalist) will be tarnished with most of the people he has fought for and with, just as was the case with many looking for Kerry to lead against going to war.
I hope Kerry goes with 1, there is NOTHING that can mitigate the disaster of approving this. It will at some point leak and it will be an environmental disaster. (The Clintons already presided over environmental disasters in Arkansas - so this likely was not visceral for HRC) Obama - in all fairness - though good on many issues has few credentials or any known interest in the environment.
Kerry saying he is not in favor does not stop Obama from approving it -- and it does not destroy either Kerry or Obama to disagree.
I found a parallel example in an unlikely way. I attended a lecture at a VT college about SoS Marshall and his advice to Truman on Israel. In America, the UN resolution that led to Israel's birth was very popular. George Marshall, one of the greatest SoS ever advised Truman to vote against it. His reason was that the partition was impractical and would lead to a second Holocaust. The partition actually created two states - neither had all parts contiguous. His view was that diving an area the size of Vermont could not work. As we all know, Truman (and the US) was the first world leader to recognize Israel and they did vote yes.
This example is relevant - Keystone and Israel/Palestine were BOTH very big issues and both had potential long term impacts that once done could not be undone. The President and SoS disagreed - both had strong reasons for having the position they did. ( Truman was also influenced by the public opinion.)
The lecturer, who was a professor and an archivist of George Marshall's papers was asked Marshall's reaction. His response was to tell the press that his job was to give the President the best advice he could ... and the President's job was to make the decision. This situation could be the same,
Some here have said that Kerry disagreeing with Obama would hurt Obama or would threaten Kerry's position. In fact, if an honest disagreement on one issue was something that Obama would demand Kerry resign over - he should resign. Not just for this issue, but because if disagreeing means that you are out, you might as well not be there. Personally I think that Obama is a bigger person than that and knows that a range of advice is better than an echo chamber.
More optimistically, I would hope that Kerry and climate scientists and ALL environmentalist will convince Obama. Where is America's usual xenophobia? Why are we allowing the length of the country to be put at risk to benefit a Canadian corporation? They have already destroyed parts of Alberta - why make it cheaper for them to continue ravaging that area.
= new reply since forum marked as read