@TheGuvnah: President might be out of reach, but she's as qualified as a lot of people that make runs at the Senate: advanced degree, successful career in the private sector, and plenty of exposure to politics.
@TheGuvnah: "Following law school, she was an associate at the Chicago office of the law firm Sidley Austin, where she first met her future husband. At the firm, she worked on marketing and intellectual property. Subsequently, she held public sector positions in the Chicago city government as an Assistant to the Mayor, and as Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development. In 1993, she became Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, a non-profit organization encouraging young people to work on social issues in nonprofit groups and government agencies. She worked there nearly four years and set fundraising records for the organization that still stood 12 years after she left."
I am sick of seeing people willing to negotiate with the Taliban because they think only women will suffer. As if the "only women will suffer" mentality isn't enough, they're also ignoring the fact that the Taliban massacred the Hazara people, ethnic and religious minorities, during their regime. This was confirmed by Amnesty International in early 2001, before we invaded. The thought that we should negotiate with people like this and bring them back into power sickens me.
A quote: A senior diplomat who has interviewed dozens of Hazara families said: "Young men over 16 were brought out of their houses into the streets and had their throats slit in a ritualistic killing. Younger boys had both hands chopped off at the wrist."
@Adah: They think we should negotiate with the Taliban because our offensives have helped create insurgents as well as kill them. We'll never crush every Taliban foot soldier ever. Plus, there are indicators that factions of the Taliban are increasingly separating from al Quaeda (the reason we're there).
As opposed to cold LEAVING or continuing the current assault/occupation with 40-80k+ troops, as McChrystal asked for, it looks like Obama has decided on an additional 34k troops (that Ms. Clinton was happy to lobby for--we'll hear about that next week) in combination with fancy political maneuvering across the Afghan landscape. [www.washingtonpost.com]
Nothing I've read lately convinces me that a heavy handed gopher-bop strategy will work, and I don't believe the central government will be able to control the entire country any time soon, especially in the south. Although the Taliban are awful, I highly doubt we can exterminate them all--at some point we'll have to deal with them.
I find this to be an insane rumor, unless Biden is looking to step down. Sorry, but no way this happens. And for Clinton, she is better set up to run for President as a former Sec. State than a lame-duck VP whose popularity will be largely based on how the country is viewing the President at the end of his two terms.
@brodeur001: True. I also think that if he switches VP's, he'll try to find a super moderate Republican or an Independent to replace Biden. Bloomberg, maybe? (Unless he succeeds in crowning himself Emperor For Life in NYC.)
@yvanehtnioj: Interesting. I think he'd need a Democrat's Democrat, though (although not a radical). He'd run the risk of fracturing off angry liberals, inspiring some 3rd party challenges, while the Republicans line up strongly behind someone.
@brodeur001: Assuming the R's find someone they're passionate about, that 35% is a lock. The lefty third party never pulls more than 5%, and an overt display of bipartisanship has the potential to sway the middle 20.
Because the way to change power structures clearly isn't to work to spread the balance of power across a population. Silly Hillary; pipe down and listen while Unkie Michael reviews the Swinging Dick Foreign Policy Strategy that has worked so awesomely well in the past. Can't be thinking of women and girls at a time like this!!!11!
In other news, I really enjoy the pictures where Barry and Hills look to be sharing a private, elitist joke. I imagine that they are cackling about the narrow-minded dumbassery they are surrounded by, and it cheers me.
This woman is the Secretary of State, an important position with responsibilities we could not imagine, using her power to, as she said, advance "the rights of women and girls". And yet right now she is getting a fraction of the publicity of Sarah Palin, who quit her only position of influence and has nothing viable to say to anyone about anything, unless you count insults (including to half of the country she claims to love so much, which she seems to think isn't "American" enough). Our press disgusts me.
@Lymed: see, i read it as saying, "she's being kept at a distance from things like women's rights and only parachutes in when she really needs to be putting sustained personal pressure..." not that it's a smart article regardless.
She would be a wonderful VP and it's a great opportunity for a future presidency (fingers crossed, - does sacrificial dances to the feminist deities-), but I'd still be sad to see her go as Secretary of State - she's done an unbelievable job.
11/25/09
11/25/09
I'd rather see Michelle Obama make a run for Senate/President.
11/25/09
i mean really. i like the woman, but let's not pretend she is a policy maker or a true leader.
11/25/09
11/25/09
She sounds at least as qualified as her husband.
11/30/09
You set a low bar.
11/25/09
A quote: A senior diplomat who has interviewed dozens of Hazara families said: "Young men over 16 were brought out of their houses into the streets and had their throats slit in a ritualistic killing. Younger boys had both hands chopped off at the wrist."
[www.rawa.org]
[www.nytimes.com]
[middleeast.about.com]
11/25/09
[yglesias.thinkprogress.org]
As opposed to cold LEAVING or continuing the current assault/occupation with 40-80k+ troops, as McChrystal asked for, it looks like Obama has decided on an additional 34k troops (that Ms. Clinton was happy to lobby for--we'll hear about that next week) in combination with fancy political maneuvering across the Afghan landscape. [www.washingtonpost.com]
Nothing I've read lately convinces me that a heavy handed gopher-bop strategy will work, and I don't believe the central government will be able to control the entire country any time soon, especially in the south. Although the Taliban are awful, I highly doubt we can exterminate them all--at some point we'll have to deal with them.
11/25/09
11/25/09
#tips
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
/speculation for funsies
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
In other news, I really enjoy the pictures where Barry and Hills look to be sharing a private, elitist joke. I imagine that they are cackling about the narrow-minded dumbassery they are surrounded by, and it cheers me.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
Dick swingers and ball scratchers can suck it.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
McKinley, Grant, Lincoln, Jackson also had different VPs for each term.
If you want to count Grover Cleveland and his non-successive terms, he too had different VPs.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
No. You get sidetracked in the candy aisle at the grocery store. Women's issues is not a SIDE TRACK.