John Kerry is going to introduce the climate legislation that he wrote with Graham and Joe Lieberman next week. And Kerry promised Graham would vote for it! Roll Call reports:

Of Graham, Kerry said: “He’s going to vote for the bill” regardless of whether he’s at the unveiling.

The Senate cannot do one thing at a time. Sen. Kerry should know this. I’m not sure how he expects them to do three things. (Sorry, four things. Next week is also when President Obama will most likely introduce us to his new Supreme Court nominee.)

Lindsey Graham promptly said it would be irresponsible to take any action until Democrats agree that we must continue drilling everywhere forever as millions of gallons of oil continue spilling into the Gulf.)

But at the moment, everyone knows that the best thing to do is just give Sen. Graham some space to throw his public temper tantrum, and hope that eventually he will calm down and throw his support back behind a bill he helped write. Then the whole thing can be defeated 59-41 with Kent Conrad voting against it for some reason.

“We know clean energy is the ticket to strong, sustainable economic growth,” Boxer said. Kerry echoed Boxer’s optimism about the measure. “Ultimately, this bill is about keeping Americans safe,” he said. President Obama lauded the tandem, saying in a prepared statement, ”With the draft legislation they are announcing today, we are one step closer to putting America in control of our energy future and making America more energy independent.”

The Boxer-Kerry bill, which is formally titled the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act,” seeks a 20 percent cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, using the levels of emisssions in 2005 as a benchmark. This is more ambitious than the House plan, which aimed to reduce emissions by 17 percent. Both plans seek an 83 percent reduction by 2050. (Both are also weaker than planned reductions in Europe and Japan, as both of them are using 1990 levels as their baseline.)

Boxer and Kerry aim to meet these targets through a “Pollution Reduction and Investment” program. Essentially, the two Senators have just given a new, less recognizable and hopefully, for them, less controversial name to the idea of cap-and-trade. Essentially, this provision places a fixed limit on carbons emissions, but leaves businesses some wiggle-room in how they will comply. The emissions cap in the Boxer-Kerry bill will only effect the 7,500 largest polluters in the country, or about 2 percent of American businesses.

While the bill seeks to protect the environment, it also touts energy conservation as a way to spark the American economy. Interestingly, the measure also includes a lot of enticements for centrist Democrats and Republicans, with generous funding provisions for nuclear power, natural gas and even coal — though it leaves many of the specifics ambiguous so that details can be decided within the Senate.

The New York Times estimates that the bill currently has 45 supporters in the Senate, with many more members on the fence. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. has said Democrats hope to have Congressional approval of climate change legislation passed by the time the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark rolls around in December.

Not surprisingly, many Republicans aren’t fond of the bill and hammered it as a new energy tax on Americans. One of the Senate’s most notorious global warming deniers, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has already compiled a list of questions for Boxer about the legislation. And in a statement, House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, “The national energy tax was a terrible idea when it passed the House, and it is an even worse idea now. Middle-class families and small businesses struggling to make ends meet shouldn’t be punished with costly legislation that will increase electricity bills, raise gasoline prices, and ship more American jobs overseas.”

Biden:

Kerry:

Hatch:

Culver:

And some of the former Senate majority leader’s old colleagues are still standing behind him. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) released a statement in which he said:

I wish Tom Daschle had not decided to withdraw his nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services. While Tom’s decision is a reminder of his loyalty to President Obama and his determination not to be a distraction, this was no ordinary appointment and today is not a good day for the cause of health care reform… Tom made it very clear he’d made a mistake and he took responsibility for it. I believe that when the smoke clears and the frenzy has ended, no one will believe that this unwitting mistake should have erased thirty years of selfless public service and remarkable legislative skill and expertise on health care. I know Tom Daschle well. I know his integrity and I respect his heart for this cause, and I know Tom will find other ways to contribute to this central mission.

Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters he would have respected any decision Daschle made regarding his future, but he expressed his regret for what had happened. “As everyone knows, Senator Daschle is like a brother to me. And he made the decision personally to withdraw. I support his decision,” Reid said. “I’m terribly disappointed that Senator Daschle is not moving forward. But that doesn’t take away from his ability that he had, and the great leader he was for us in the Senate.”

And Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), no great friend of Daschle’s, said he was “stunned” by the decision, and called it “tragic.” He also told reporters he believed Daschle had the votes to be confirmed.

What we do know so far is that a Clinton pedigree appears to be a major asset. Not only did Obama’s incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, make his bones in the Clinton White House, but also all six transition team leaders for the departments of State, Defense and Treasury served in the prior Democratic administration. Bill Galston, who was a senior domestic advisor to Clinton, points out, “One of the advantages that Obama has that Clinton did not have is a usable past. The Clinton transition went too far in excluding people with Jimmy Carter experience.”

Nowhere do things currently seem murkier than in matching names with top jobs in the foreign policy and national security arenas. The rumored front-runners for secretary of state have been two senators who have served with Obama and Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee: almost-2004-president John Kerry and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, the Republican critic of the Iraq war. Kerry probably would have tapped Biden as his nominee for Foggy Bottom — and now the vice-president-elect presumably is trying to return the favor.

As for Hagel, Obama has long promised to give Republicans a prominent role on his foreign-policy team, saying in a Salon interview a year ago, “I think it is important for an administration to have strong, robust debates as long as everybody is on the same team … That’s part of the reason why I want some traditional Republicans to be involved in this process.” Hagel is certainly actively auditioning for the role of the Democrats’ favorite Republican, a position on the ideological grid once held by John McCain. It is not coincidental that Hagel has scheduled a major policy address in Washington next Tuesday titled, in slightly heavy-handed fashion, “Toward a Bi-Partisan Foreign Policy.”

Confusing everything is the persistent talk about retaining Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, virtually the only Bush Cabinet member likely to emerge from the current administration with his reputation intact. If Gates stays even for an interim period, it is hard to imagine that Obama would also give a major post to a Republican like Hagel unless the president-elect has a very idiosyncratic definition of “change.” But there are hints that Gates would only stay on his terms, which include the right to choose his deputies at the Pentagon. There is also the perplexing timing of a speech that Gates delivered in late October (at a time when all the portents pointed to an Obama presidency) calling for a new generation of nuclear weapons. If Gates wanted to ingratiate himself with the incoming Democrats, preaching the gospel of new and better nukes seems a strange way to go about it.

Richard Danzig, who was secretary of the Navy under Clinton and an ardent Obama supporter early in the race, is the most likely Democratic alternative to Gates. In fact, the Army Times reported Thursday that “high-level Defense officials” are preparing to hand over the keys to the Pentagon to Danzig. At times like this, specialty publications like the Army Times sometimes have better sources in their subject area than the major newspapers and broadcast networks.

Transition, of course, would not be transition without the Hillary Clinton rumor of the week. Steve Clemons, who directs the American strategy program at the New American Foundation, says there are hints that Clinton may be under consideration for the secretary of state post, stressing that she certainly passes the experience threshold. “It would be an unbelievably brilliant move by Obama if she would do it,” he says. The Washington Post’s transition column picked up the same vibrations Thursday and floated an item.

While this remains a long shot at best, tapping Clinton to replace Rice would do more than simply revive interest in Dick Morris’ off-the-wall 2005 book, “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.” If Obama were somehow to give the top Cabinet post to his rival for the 2008 Democratic nomination, it would be, well, Lincolnesque. In assembling a Cabinet, Lincoln practiced a politics of “malice towards none” by naming William Seward, once the favorite for the 1860 Republican nomination, as his secretary of state.

But, if history is any gauge, these Washington games of telephone invariably end up with the wrong number in picking a Cabinet. That is why it would be folly to completely dismiss other candidates for secretary of state such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (the Democratic Party’s version of “always a bridesmaid”) and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (who was the only non-Chicagoan seriously considered for White House chief of staff).

Even when the press has the right names (after the appointments), it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusions about the power realities within the new administration. In mid-December 2000, the New York Times editorial page finally found something to like about the new team in Washington: “President-elect George W. Bush’s intention to name Colin Powell as secretary of state and Condoleezza Rice as national security adviser instantly enhances his coming administration. They are seasoned, thoughtful practitioners who will bring international stature and extensive knowledge to the Bush administration.”

Transitions are a tricky business even for Democrats. Bill Clinton misfired with a series of initial picks, from the disorganized Les Aspin at the Pentagon to the out-of-touch Lloyd Bentsen at Treasury to the inexperienced Mack McLarty as White House chief of staff. That is why the mantra of transition reporting — as beguiling as the name game invariably is — should be “trust but verify.”