22 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969The Benghazi statement she made sealed her doom. Pity really.
The GOP wanted Kerry bad to be nominated, and were overflowing in their praise of his qualifications, and said Senate confirmation would be a cake walk. After all, they want to free up the Mass Senate seat for Scott Brown.
Should have been Rice.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by sh76Has anyone though a minute about how idiotic it is for the United States to send woman after woman out as Secretary of State to negotiate with misogynistic male ambassadors of other nations. This includes the last three Presidents. The women could be highly qualified, and probably some of them were, but they worked with a decided disadvantage.
Bore them into submission, baby.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-john-kerry-state-20121221,0,3517149.story
Susan Rice is no doubt smart, but seemingly genuinely unprincipled. Kerry will at least garner the respect of foreign leaders that is given men in that position. Women begin way behind, trying to gain that respect.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by normbenignI saw people say that when Madeliene Albright was appointed Secretary of State. Your assumptions mean nothing. Dude, you really did expose yourself. You live in the past.
Has anyone though a minute about how idiotic it is for the United States to send woman after woman out as Secretary of State to negotiate with misogynistic male ambassadors of other nations. This includes the last three Presidents. The women could be highly qualified, and probably some of them were, but they worked with a decided disadvantage.
I guess you thought it even worse for these countries with Thatcher as Britian PM or Benazir Bhutto as Pakistan PM or Corazon Aquino as Phillipines President. After all, what respect would misogynistic male presidents or PMs of other countries have for these female leaders. And the meetings and phone calls at the top level can be much important to sealing the deal than the ambassador.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by normbenignI think Kerry was the best we were going to get under Obama, but he's no prize. He has far too much affection for the UN and is too limp-wristed to be effective dealing with ChinaRussia. He's certainly not going to be the person that will referee a shoving match between India and Pakistan, and he'll do nothing to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He'll apologize for the United States the same way he sold out his Vietnam buddies on Capitol Hill.
Has anyone though a minute about how idiotic it is for the United States to send woman after woman out as Secretary of State to negotiate with misogynistic male ambassadors of other nations. This includes the last three Presidents. The women could be highly qualified, and probably some of them were, but they worked with a decided disadvantage.
Susan R ...[text shortened]... leaders that is given men in that position. Women begin way behind, trying to gain that respect.
The good news is that this sets up a nasty primary fight between him and Hillary, and Hillary will have to handle the Benghazi issue again in four years, while Kerry will have four years of the decline of American influence within the international community to answer for.
I think Hillary could have been more effective under a president who was not so hellbent on compromising the international standing of the United States.
Condoleeza Rice was effective, but that was in no small part because she represented a president who, for better or worse, let it be known that she spoke for him and you defied her at your own peril. I think women can serve ably in the role, as long as they're representing a strong government, but I don't disagree that a great deal of world leaders would regard a man with more respect. Golda Meir was one tough leader.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by normbenignSounds like more "projecting".
Has anyone though a minute about how idiotic it is for the United States to send woman after woman out as Secretary of State to negotiate with misogynistic male ambassadors of other nations. This includes the last three Presidents. The women could be highly qualified, and probably some of them were, but they worked with a decided disadvantage.
Susan R ...[text shortened]... leaders that is given men in that position. Women begin way behind, trying to gain that respect.
Your attitudes are becoming more and more anachronistic.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, he's really going downhill. Might have to take him out back and put him out of his misery?
Sounds like more "projecting".
Your attitudes are becoming more and more anachronistic.
What is anachronistic about recognizing that in much of the world women do not garner the same respect as men? Those cultures are anachronistic. Recognizing for what they are and questioning the effectiveness of women as American diplomats based on that is not. It's a valid question. Of course I'd prefer Hillary Clinton to Mr. Pink Lipstick Windsurfer any day.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672What shall we do with sasquatch672?
Yeah, he's really going downhill. Might have to take him out back and put him out of his misery?
What is anachronistic about recognizing that in much of the world women do not garner the same respect as men? Those cultures are anachronistic. Recognizing for what they are and questioning the effectiveness of women as American diplomats based on that ...[text shortened]... alid question. Of course I'd prefer Hillary Clinton to Mr. Pink Lipstick Windsurfer any day.
He hates John Kerry and Obama too.
He hasn't much time either for poor Miss rice,
What she said about Benghazi was not too nice.
The speaker of the house spoke at will,
but then very few would support his bill.
Then just when you thought, we're on a roll,
up popped Lanza and now it's gun control.
Look out Obama, for under your watch,
you'll be criticised for years by old sasquatch.
He'll take you to task for what he has seen,
all the way up to 2016.
Four more years and lots of tears,
sasquatch is having a few more beers.
Where oh where are the GOP?
Will they be ruined by the tea party?
In 2016 will it be Clinton Vs. Palin?
Democrats in the lead, Republicans trailin'.
Is there any politician to make sasquatch happy?
Will he grab the rifle that belonged to his pappy?
Come on now sasquatch you gotta calm down,
Obama is the only game in town.
I'll get my guitar and I'll play you a riff,
let's go jump off that fiscal cliff.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969Is it your notion that it doesn't matter what foreign leaders think of who does our negotiating?
I saw people say that when Madeliene Albright was appointed Secretary of State. Your assumptions mean nothing. Dude, you really did expose yourself. You live in the past.
I guess you thought it even worse for these countries with Thatcher as Britian PM or Benazir Bhutto as Pakistan PM or Corazon Aquino as Phillipines President. After all, what respe ...[text shortened]... and phone calls at the top level can be much important to sealing the deal than the ambassador.
A head of State is different from an ambassador, which the position of Secretary of State really is. Do you think the heads of state in N. Korea, China, Iran, Russia or even Venezuela give the same respect and attention to a female. Our liberal views don't carry much weight with countries that don't even educate girls.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672Overall, I'm not questioning the qualifications of any of the women who served as Secretary of State. Only that they took the job with a disadvantage they couldn't readily overcome.
I think Kerry was the best we were going to get under Obama, but he's no prize. He has far too much affection for the UN and is too limp-wristed to be effective dealing with ChinaRussia. He's certainly not going to be the person that will referee a shoving match between India and Pakistan, and he'll do nothing to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace ...[text shortened]... l of world leaders would regard a man with more respect. Golda Meir was one tough leader.
Kind of like a 5' 100# woman thinking she can do the same job as a firefighter 6' and 200# male.
It could well be argued that the "right" woman could outperform any man in that particular job (Secretary of State). But that right woman would have to so far overqualified as to be nearly impossible to find. Kerry is probably as qualified as Hillary, whose never been overly impressive so far as her resume is concerned, or her accomplishments or lack thereof in the job. Susan Rice is arguably more qualified than Kerry, save her shameful performance regarding Benghazi.
It would be fun to see two losers fighting over the Democratic party spoils.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyVERY well done sir! Always loved you Irish...
What shall we do with sasquatch672?
He hates John Kerry and Obama too.
He hasn't much time either for poor Miss rice,
What she said about Benghazi was not too nice.
The speaker of the house spoke at will,
but then very few would support his bill.
Then just when you thought, we're on a roll,
up popped Lanza and now it's gun control.
Look o ...[text shortened]... wn.
I'll get my guitar and I'll play you a riff,
let's go jump off that fiscal cliff.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by normbenignNo arguments. If Hillsry had advocated slinging nukes atAfghanistan, I'd say she would not get screwed with.
Overall, I'm not questioning the qualifications of any of the women who served as Secretary of State. Only that they took the job with a disadvantage they couldn't readily overcome.
Kind of like a 5' 100# woman thinking she can do the same job as a firefighter 6' and 200# male.
It could well be argued that the "right" woman could outperform any man ...[text shortened]... Benghazi.
It would be fun to see two losers fighting over the Democratic party spoils.