Okay, I admit it – I have tried to be in total denial about the following interview of Secretary of State Clinton and Ann Curry. My aunt sent me the pertinent quote earlier this week, and I just didn’t want to believe it. I still don’t want to believe it, to be honest. It makes me both sad and angry for reasons I am sure many of you share, too.

And now, to the interview:

Sigh. So, yeah, Secretary Clinton says she won’t run for President again. Sure, there was this (funny to me) quote in there:

“Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified,” she said. “I believe in delegating power … I am not one of those people who feel I have to have my face in front of the newspaper and TV every day … It’s just the way I am.”

Clearly a little dig at He Who Must Be On TV Every Day, which was enjoyable, I must confess. Okay, it was downright funny.

And then there was the part where even Andrea Mitchell, of all people, is commenting on how surprising it is hat President CLINTON has not received the Nobel Peace Prize despite raising BILLIONS of dollars for the Clinton Initiative which does great work all over the world. Never mind all of the work President Clinton did with President Bush (I) in terms of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. So, yeah, sure, it makes perfect sense that Mr. Talker No Walker Man would be the one who gets it. Pathetic.

Back to Hillary Clinton. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe she was trying to shift the focus off of her, and was trying not to steal the limelight from her boss (and her water carrying for him is a bitter pill to swallow). But, no, she has repeated that claim again in this article, the title of which is also bitter, Clinton: I’d Have Hired Obama. Yeah, she said it after the claim indicated in the title. I’ll let the article set the stage:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that if she had won presidential election, Barack Obama would “absolutely” have served in her Cabinet.

Recalling the conversation she had with then-president-elect Obama about her joining the administration during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said that she was at first surprised when the president offered her the secretary of state post.

“It was, you know, about … five, six days after the election. And my husband and I were out for a walk, actually, in a, sort of, preserve near where we live in New York. And he had his cell phone in his pocket. It started ringing in the middle of this, you know, big nature preserve,” Clinton said. “Instead of turning it off, he answered it. And it was President-elect Obama wanting to talk to him about some people he was considering for positions.”

Clinton said she then picked up the phone thinking Obama wanted to talk generally about Cabinet picks when he surprised her by asking the former New York senator and Democratic rival to become his chief diplomat.

“He said I want you to be my secretary of state. And I said, ‘Oh, no, you don’t,’” Clinton recalled. “I said, ‘Oh, please, there’s so many other people who could do this.’

“But, you know, we kept talking. I finally began thinking, look, if I had won and I had called him, I would have wanted him to say yes,” Clinton continued. “And, you know, I’m pretty old-fashioned, and it’s just who I am. So at the end of the day, when your president asks you to serve, you say yes, if you can.”

Asked if she would have made the same call to Obama if she had been elected president, Clinton responded: “Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, of course.”

Well, I can see that she would have to do so, but SHE would have been the boss, and SHOULD have been, as many of us think given te votes she received in the Primary.

And that brings me to this:

Additionally, Clinton backed up her statement from earlier in the week that she will not run for president a second time.

“I have absolutely no interest in running for president again. None. None,” she said. “I mean, I know that’s hard for some people to believe, but, you know, I just don’t.”

“I feel like I have had the most amazing life in my public service,” the secretary of state continued. “And for the last 17 years, ever since my husband started running for president, I have been, you know, in the spotlight, working hard. And this job is incredibly all-encompassing. So I think I’m looking forward to maybe taking some time off.”

She HAS had an amazing life, no doubt about it. She is an amazing woman – no one would expect anything less from someone of her stature. But I have to say, the thought of NEVER having a President Hillary Clinton is demoralizing. I feel like the DNC Elite have won (again), getting the Clintons out once and for all, despite the tremendous successes they have had independent of each other, and for the good of the country. It just burns me up that they might actually succeed. Dammit it to hell.

That despite the fact that k, Secretary Clinton has higher approval ratings than President Obama does now. I’m not kidding – hot off the Gullup wires, her ratings are 62%, and Obama’s are 56%. Maybe it’s because people are seeing that SHE is out there working her ass off on our behalf, on behalf of the country, and for the greater good of the world. They see Obama hemming and hawing, incapable of making hard decisions, or fulfilling campaign promises, yet showing up on YouTube doing the salsa (more or less) the other night while Clinton has been to the following countries between 10/9 – 15: Zurich, London, Dublin, Belfast, Moscow and Kazan. Holy smokes – makes me tired just reading the list.

She is just a remarkable woman, isn’t she?? Incredible energy, devotion, good humor, intelligence, and compassion, all in one person who SHOULD be the boss.

So I have been in denial, not wanting to believe my ears and eyes when she says she won’t be running again. Someone wake me when she changes her mind. Or Obama’s out of office. Whichever comes first…

(And a grudging thanks to Bronwyn’s Harbor for sending me the video. Thanks, BH – kinda!)

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: President Obama, like any other President, has his fair share of critics. Even fourth-graders have noticed.

“Why do people hate you?”, a fourth-grade boy asked Obama at a town hall event in New Orleans today. “They’re supposed to love you. And God is love.”

“That’s what I’m talking about,” replied the President.

Here’s the video of the exchange, though the transcript is below if you’d prefer:

Um, what the hell was he talking about BEFORE the little boy asked his question? Wasn’t he saying, “It’s a man’s turn. Isn’t it? It’s a guy’s turn.” That’s what it sounded like to me, anyway…So, just what came BEFORE that?? Curious.

Obama continued his response to the child:

“First of all, I did get elected president, so not everybody hates me,” Obama noted, before adding, “What is true is if you were watching TV lately, it seems like everybody’s just getting mad all the time. And I — you know, I think that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just what’s called politics where, you know, once one party wins, then the other party kind of gets — feels like it needs to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes.”

“And so you shouldn’t take it too seriously,” Obama told the boy. “And then, sometimes, as I said before, people just — I think they’re worried about their own lives. A lot of people are losing their jobs right now. A lot of people are losing their health care or they’ve lost their homes to foreclosure, and they’re feeling frustrated. And when you’re president of the United States, you know, you’ve got to deal with all of that.”

So, um, not to quibble or anything, but just when do you think you are going to get around to dealing with job loss, home loss, and losing health care? Hey, just asking:

“You get some of the credit when things go good. And when things are going tough, then, you know, you’re going to get some of the blame, and that’s part of the job,” he continued. “But, you know, I’m a pretty tough guy.”

“You’ve just got to keep on going, even when folks are criticizing you, because — as long as you know that you’re doing it for other people, all right?” Obama concluded.

The boy’s question was the last one the President fielded at his event at the University of New Orleans, his first trip to the city since being elected to the Oval Office.

Well, there is a good reason the child asked that question. While Obama did get elected, the latest Fox Poll shows that he wouldn’t if the election was held today, as this article highlights, Fox News Poll: 43 Percent Would Vote To Re-Elect President Obama:If the election were held today, 43 percent of American voters would back Barack Obama for president, according to a new Fox News poll.

Oh dear. I guess that’s some of the “blame” Obama is getting for not fulfilling his campaign promises, for starters, not to mention his continued constant campaigning instead of working thing he’s got going on. Here are the results of this poll:

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. (Emphasis mine.) That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday, the latest Fox News poll finds the president’s ratings on foreign issues are lower than his overall job ratings. All in all, 49 percent of Americans say they approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. His average approval for the term so far is 58 percent.

Yep, Obama’s approval numbers are below 50% for the first time at 49%. How about on some of the issues:

On Afghanistan, 41 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Obama is doing and 43 percent disapprove. For his handling of Iran, 44 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove.

On the president’s handling of the economy, voters are almost equally split: 48 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. On health care, some 42 percent approve of the president’s performance and half disapprove, 50 percent.

Among Democrats, 78 percent say they would vote to re-elect President Obama, down from 87 percent in April. For 2008 Obama voters, 81 percent say they would vote to re-elect him — that’s a slight up tick from the 79 percent who said so previously.

Six in 10 Americans — 60 percent — think Obama is a strong and decisive leader.
And while 38 percent think President Obama is getting good advice from his advisors, a larger number — 45 percent — think he is “listening to the wrong people.” (Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from October 13 to October 14. The poll has a 3-point error margin.)

Like Rahm Emmanuel, or David Axelrod, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid? Yeah, I’d say he’s listening to the wrong people.

And about that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing:

Did He Deserve It?

Upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformational figures.” Most Americans agree with the president — 65 percent say he did not deserve to win, while 29 percent say he did.

Furthermore, a slim 54 percent majority of Democrats think Obama did deserve to win, while 38 percent disagree. For independents, 19 percent think he deserved it, while nearly three-quarters, 74 percent, say he did not. Among Republicans, almost all — 91 percent — say he did not deserve it.

When asked why the Nobel Committee gave the president the prize, about a third of Americans, 32 percent, say because he deserved it, while the largest number — 44 percent — think the committee hoped the prize would make Obama “think twice before using military force in the future.”

About that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing. Remember how we were all told the Committee Was unanimous in their decision to give it to Obama? Turns out that 3 out of 5 of them did NOT want to give it to him. Golly gee, I guess truth really DOES will out! Evidently, their reaction was the same as many of ours – he hasn’t DONE anything yet but speechify, for cryin’ out loud!

The poll also address how Congress was doing:

Most Americans are unhappy with Congress these days — 66 percent disapprove, including 45 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents and 84 percent of Republicans. Overall, less than one of four Americans, 24 percent, approve of the job Congress is doing.

Looking ahead to the 2010 Congressional election, for the first time this year the Republicans have the advantage: 42 percent of voters say they are more likely to back the Republicans to provide a check on President Obama’s power, while 38 percent say they would vote for the Democrat to help the president pass his policies.

Finally, in a rare example of bipartisan agreement, majorities of Democrats, 53 percent, Republicans, 78 percent, and Independents, 61 percent, agree the country is more divided these days. All in all, 64 percent of Americans think the country is more politically divided today — that’s more than twice the number who say it is not more divided, 31 percent.

Click here for the raw data.

What a bang-up job Obama has done in uniting us, just like he said he would. Blech. Can’t believe people fell for THAT line again, can you? Great – so glad there is one area that is truly bipartisan. Ahem.

And while President Obama is still feeling the love, the numbers of those who love him seem to be decreasing the more they open their eyes to see and their ears to hear. Such a shame they couldn’t muster that BEFORE the election, isn’t it? Now, his daily tracking poll continues to go down; Secretary Clinton’s approval numbers are higher than his (no big surprise to ME there); and his overall rating is at 49%. COngress doesn’t fare much better. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy, or more deserving Congress, could it?

“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”

– French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. Just how low we’ve sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration’s satisfaction when Russia’s president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable.”

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

I should add, I don’t have the same level of disdain for the French that some in this country have. In fact, I love France, and I love the people I have met there. I have not had the experience of French people looking down their noses at me because I’m American, even in Paris. In small villages in which I’ve traveled, even with my crappy French (I took Spanish in school), and the limited English the shop keepers had, we each worked hard to understand each other. One woman didn’t speak a word of English, but would engage in pantomime (I’m sure there’s a joke there about the French and mimes) to get her point across, AND she was funny, to boot. So, while I appreciate that some people have not had this experience, I won’t jump on the French bashing bandwagon. Honestly, I can’t wait until I get to go back there.

Back to the article,and Krauthammer’s point:

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Hmmm – WWHD? You know, What Would Hillary Do? Would she reveal this nugget of explosive information? My bet is ABSO-FREAKIN’-LUTELY. How about Obama? What would he do:

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama’s star turn as planetary visionary: “The administration told the French,” reports the Wall Street Journal, “that it didn’t want to ’spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N.”

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world.”

He explained: “President Obama has even said, ‘I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite.”

Sarkozy’s unspoken words? “And yet, sacré bleu, he’s sitting on Qom!”

Uh, yeah. It seems like the perfect setting for exposing this information. Evidently, Sarkozy thought so, too. Others didn’t realize what had just happened:

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama’s fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, “No one nation can . . . dominate another nation.” That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” in fact “make no sense in an interconnected world.” NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: “There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.” Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)

Mon Dieu! Those are some pretty strong words there. Appropriate, though. Can you imagine if any other president, who had the opportunity to chair this very important committee for the FIRST time, sat on that kind of information? No doubt, it wouldn’t just be the French President who was upset about this. Thankfully, those who are less invested in the “aura” of Obama actually paid attention to this “oversight” on Obama’s part at this critical juncture.

Once again, Obama has demonstrated how woefully prepared he is for the REAL World Stage.

(And C, if you’re reading this far, I hope you appreciate the French phrases!)

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know – the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed – she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong – as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

My good buddy, American Girl in Italy, provided me with this article today, Clinton Urged Obama To Talk Tough On Iran. Now, see, this does not surprise me one little bit – both that Clinton wanted to talk tough to Iran, and that Obama left her hanging out to dry. That is her way, and that is his. And that is why so many of us never wanted her there in the first place (though we appreciate having an adult in the room). We knew it was coming.

So, here’s the deal:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged President Obama for two days to toughen his language on Iran before he did so, and then was surprised when he condemned Iran’s crackdown on demonstrators last week, administration officials say.

At his June 23 news conference, Mr. Obama said he was “appalled and outraged” by Iranian behavior and “strongly condemned” the violence against anti-government demonstrators. Up until then, Mr. Obama and other administration officials had taken a softer line, expressing “deep concern” about the situation and calling on Iran to “respect the dignity of its own people.”

Behind the scenes, the officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing internal deliberations, said Mrs. Clinton had been advocating the stronger U.S. response, but the president resisted. When he finally took her advice, the aides said, he did so without informing her first.

This was the first known example of awkwardness between the two former rivals for the Democratic nomination for president since they made up following Mr. Obama’s election. The disagreement also gave some insight into the Obama administration’s foreign policy decision-making process five months into its term.

“… Obama administration’s foreign policy decision-making process”??? Well, it seems to be, “We don’t know what the hell we are doing, and we will just say or do whatever we can until we get the fawning recognition on which we so depend. If that means screwing people over, even people in the Cabinet, oh well!” And, it is just a continuation of a policy Obama began during the Primary: taking Clinton’s words whole-cloth without EVER giving her credit for them. He did it time and time again. I guess we can’t be surprised that he is doing it now, too:

The officials said they were familiar with the language Mr. Obama used in his news conference because it was sent to the State Department a day earlier, but that Mrs. Clinton did not know until he uttered the words that he would choose that moment to make them public.

“It was a happy surprise,” one administration official said. “It was echoing the line the secretary had been pushing for a couple of days.”

Uh, yeah. I am sure that is exactly what it was, “a happy surprise.” Sure.

Guess when The Decider decided? About when you wold expect:

Another official said Mr. Obama apparently did not make the final decision to go ahead with the tougher stance until shortly before his remarks.

“I don’t think he himself had decided to do it until he did it, but we knew full well it was headed that way, because the White House sent over the actual language he’d use if he chose to take that line for folks to review and weigh in on, which State did,” the second official said.

Oh, he is so gifted, isn’t he?? How many times did he flip a coin? Draw straws? Played “eeney, meeney, miney mo” before he decided just what he was going to say – as he walked to his TOTUS?? Please.

Naturally, as to the tough language:

The White House and the State Department declined to comment publicly on Mrs. Clinton’s “private advice” to Mr. Obama and their internal communications.

As one would expect.

Apparently, Secretary Clinton was not the only one urging Obama to say something stronger:

Key congressional Republicans – most prominently Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who was Mr. Obama’s opponent in last year’s election – criticized the president for being too “timid” and failing to speak out early against the Iranian regime’s crackdown on protests following the disputed June 12 presidential election.

Mr. Obama initially said he did not want to appear to be interfering in Iran’s internal affairs and provide ammunition to the regime, which tends to blame the United States and other Western countries for any unrest. In addition, he knew he would most likely have to deal with the current government as part of the West’s efforts to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, officials said.

“On the one hand, he may have felt that the United States should naturally criticize the Iranian government’s violent crackdown on the protesters,” said Alireza Nader, an analyst at the Rand Corp. “On the other, he acknowledged that the U.S. was still willing to engage with Iran in the future. Strong U.S. criticism of the Iranian government could jeopardize future negotiations.”

Mrs. Clinton agreed with the president, but she thought it was time to get tougher after the June 20 killing of a young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, on a Tehran street, officials said. A video of the killing was widely viewed on the Internet.

At the same time, they added, she was content to leave the decision to Mr. Obama, because she understood that he bore ultimate responsibility for any consequences.

However, Mr. Obama’s sudden decision to toughen his language on Tehran had the effect of making the State Department look out of sync with the White House.

Until about an hour before the presidential news conference, the State Department continued to follow a more cautious public line, using words like “deeply concerned” about the situation in Iran, but refusing to “condemn” the crackdown. Then came Mr. Obama’s surprise.

“The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days,” he said. “I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.”

The decision on Iran was very personal, officials said. Mr. Obama knew his senior aides’ views, but it was up to him to “pull the trigger.”

Or to grow a pair. Or read the most recent poll – “Oh, no – not everyone is lapping up every word I read – I must do something! Quick – get me Clinton’s report and I’ll have it put on TOTUS!” Ahem.

Let’s not lose this important paragraph, though:

However, Mr. Obama’s sudden decision to toughen his language on Tehran had the effect of making the State Department look out of sync with the White House. (Emphasis mine.)

You don’t say. Well, OF COURSE IT DID. That was the intent, was it not? If it WASN’T, Obama could have said something like, “In conjunction with the State Department, ” or “As Secretary Clinton and I have discussed,” or SOMETHING that didn’t leave her high and dry. But like I said, that is his way. As is this, apparently:

“We have so few tools when we deal with Iran, and we don’t fully understand what’s going on, so all we’ve got is what the president says,” the first administration official said. “There isn’t a huge process behind it.”

In general, the officials said, Mr. Obama has relied on the government bureaucracy to formulate language on foreign affairs.

For example, before Mr. Obama’s meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday, everything he said was a “result of a long process involving meetings and briefing papers,” the official said. Even with North Korea, another country that has no diplomatic relations with the U.S., “we have a formalized mechanism in the six-party [nuclear] talks and more moving pieces.”

Analysts said the Iran episode shows Mr. Obama’s nuanced thinking and in-depth analysis of foreign policy, although some warned that he risks being too cautious and appearing indecisive.

“Appear”??? How about, he IS indecisive!! Once again, we are getting a load of hooey (”nuanced thinking”) to obscure how woefully out of his depth Obama is. I am sure you caught all of that above about him having the “bureaucracy” basically tell him what to say after they comb through everything for him. So, I guess his big “decision making” is to read, or not to read…

Some people do actually see through him, thank heavens:

“The demonstrators in Iran have revealed the extreme caution of Obama’s approach to the world, as if he is afraid of making a mistake, and his dislike of disruptions to an agenda he has already laid out,” Reginald Dale, director of the Transatlantic Media Network at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in reference to the president’s offer of engagement, which so far has been spurned by Tehran.

Kim R. Holmes, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, who was assistant secretary of state for international organizations in the George W. Bush administration, said: “The caution that we should not meddle was shown to be pointless after the Iranian leadership blamed the protests on America and Britain anyway.”

True that. But of course, there are reasons for Obama’s hesitancy:

Michael J. Green, former senior director for East Asian affairs on the National Security Council in the Bush White House, said Mr. Obama may be trying the learn from his predecessor’s mistakes.

Mr. Bush tended to make decisions during meetings with his national security team, but the problem was that his aides “interpreted his directions differently,” especially during his first term, Mr. Green said.

At the time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s aides often said that he “felt good” about the outcome of a White House meeting, because Mr. Bush had taken his advice. Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld felt the same way, except that their advice was usually very different.

“It seems that Obama is trying to avoid such confusion by laying out specifically what he wants,” Mr. Green said.

As involved as Mrs. Clinton may have been in the process leading up to Mr. Obama’s decision on Iran, “the secretary of state usually doesn’t have the last say, because he or she is not there with the president all the time,” he said. “With all the modern technology, location still means power.” (Nicholas Kralev
)

Well, Mr. Green – you are assuming Obama KNOWS what he wants. Besides world domination, that is. But does HE know how to go about it? No, he has to leave that up to everyone else to figure out because he hasn’t a clue. Not only that, but he has no grace. Yes, he is the one who has “to pull the trigger,” but there are ways to do that in which others are not left hanging. But, that’s just not Obama’s way, now is it?

UPDATE: American Girl mentioned the following timely video in the Comments section, but it needs to be here:

Women in sunglasses and headscarves, speaking through megaphones, brandishing cameras, carrying signs: When they first appeared, the photographs of the 2005 Tehran University women’s rights protests were a powerful reminder of the true potential of Iranian women. The images were uplifting; they featured women of many ages; and they went on circulating long after the protests themselves died down. Now they have been replaced by a far more brutal and already infamous set of images: The photographs and video taken this past weekend of a young Iranian woman, allegedly shot by a government sniper, dying on the streets of Tehran.

As Ms. Applebaum notes, the murdered young woman, Neda, may be destined to become the symbolic martyr of this revolution. Listening to CNN early this morning, Kyra Phillips and a fellow anchor were interviewing another 19 year old woman by phone, withholding her name for obvious safety reasons. She was asked if she had any reason for optimism that their protests would do any good. After sharing that she had been beaten with a club by security forces on Saturday, she bravely answered that ‘of course she was optimistic. History tells her that all revolution begins this way.’

Her voice full of emotion, this young woman recounted many of the events unfolding around her. She said, “We are all Neda.” It reminded me how spoiled we are in this country and take so many of our hard earned freedoms for granted. The CNN anchor noted he had attended protests staged by Iranian women in years past and was astounded by their incredible bravery, staring down security forces, shouting right in their faces.

Interesting now that public pressure has mounted and people all over the world viewed the tragic death of Neda, President Obama is choosing to give a press conference today. The latest White House spin, that his Cairo speech was somehow a motivator to the Iranian people seems particularly cruel as well as irresponsible, disregarding the incredible sacrifices on the ground of the protesters over a long period of time. I am not suggesting the President should have strongly inserted himself into this situation from day one. However, after his usual practice of keeping a low profile while he sees which way the political wind is blowing, to then swoop in to try to take the credit, acting as thought it never occurred to the people of Iran to protest the current regime before hearing Obama’s words or even seeing him elected is preposterous.

Ms. Applebaum further states:

In the United States, the most America-centric commentators have somberly attributed the strength of recent demonstrations to the election of Barack Obama. Others want to give credit to the democracy rhetoric of the Bush administration. Still others want to call this a “Twitter revolution” or a “Facebook revolution,” as if zippy new technology alone had inspired the protests. But the truth is that the high turnout has been the result of many years of organizational work, carried out by small groups of civil rights activists and above all women’s groups, working largely unnoticed and without much outside help.

I am grateful to Ms. Applebaum for drawing attention to the efforts of women, which, once again, would otherwise be largely ignored. At least someone is willing to acknowledge that half the world, the female half, is not silent in the fight for human rights.

Since 2006, the One Million Signatures Campaign has been circulating a petition, online and in print, that calls for an end to laws that discriminate against women and the enactment of laws that provide equal rights for women in marriage, equal rights to divorce, equal inheritance rights and equal testimony rights for men and women in court. Though based outside the country, the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, founded by a pair of sisters, translates and publishes online fundamental human rights documents; it maintains an online database of the names of thousands of victims of the Islamic Republic as well. In the past decade, Iranian women have participated in student strikes as well as teachers’ strikes, and in organizations of Bahai, Christian and other religious groups whose members are deemed “heretics” by the regime.

Not Obama, not Bush and not Twitter, in other words, but years of work and effort lie behind the public display of defiance and, in particular, the number of women on the streets — and their presence matters. Their presence could strike the deepest blow against the regime.
(snip)
The Iranian clerics know that women pose a profound threat to their authority, too: As the activist Ladan Boroumand has written, the regime would not bother to brutally repress dissidents unless it feared them deeply. Nobody would have murdered a peaceful, unarmed young woman in blue jeans — unless her mere presence on the street presented a dire threat.

The regime may succeed. Violence usually succeeds, at least in the short term, in intimidating people. In the long term, however, the links, structures, organizations and groups set up by Iranian women, not to mention the photographs of the past week, will continue to gnaw away at the Iranian regime’s legitimacy — and we should take note. I cannot count how many times I’ve been told in recent years that “women’s issues” in the Islamic world are a secondary subject: Whether the discussion is of the Afghan constitution or the Saudi government, the standard line among most commentators has always been that other things — stability, security, oil — matter more. But regimes that repress the civil and human rights of half their population are inherently unstable. Sooner or later, there has to be a backlash. In Iran, we’re watching one unfold.

I am likewise reminded of the words of Secretary of State Clinton when she addressed the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing as First Lady, in defiance of the US State Dept and Chinese Government:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”

Secretary Clinton once again echoed her deeply held sentiments while addressing the Barnard graduating class on May 21, 2009:

“Although not always acknowledged by governments, businesses, or society overall, women and girls bear a disproportionate burden of most of the problems we face today. In the midst of this global economic crisis, women who are already the majority of the world’s poor are driven deeper into poverty. In places where food is scarce, women and girls are often the last to eat, and eat the least. In regions torn apart by war and conflict, women are more likely to be refugees or targets of sexual violence. . .

And women’s progress is more than a matter of morality. It is a political, economic, social and security imperative for the United States and for every nation represented in this graduating class. If you want to know how stable, healthy, and democratic a country is, look at its women, look at its girls.”

And yet the marginalization of women and girls goes on. It is one of humankind’s oldest problems. But what is different today is that we have 21st century tools to combat it. . . Today, women are finding their voices, and those voices are being heard far beyond their own narrow circumstances.”

In the United States, the fight for women’s suffrage back in 1920 was horrid, ugly, even violent. In the end, Congress granted us this right by one vote. One. I am reminded that a violent act is committed against a woman in this country every few seconds, and women in more oppressive societies have had to endure unspeakable horrors. I cannot imagine the courage of Iranian women in the streets today, and applaud all those who have been working quietly for years to stand against these injustices.

I hope we can ensure that women are not ignored as valiant and courageous leaders in this cause.

WASHINGTON — As tens of thousands of Iranian protesters take to the streets in defiance of the government in Tehran, officials in Washington are debating whether President Obama’s response to Iran’s disputed election has been too muted. Mr. Obama is coming under increased pressure from Republicans and other conservatives who say he should take a more visible stance in support of the protesters.

Even while supporting the president’s approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.

Other White House officials have counseled a more cautious approach, saying harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans. So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics.

Even so, the Iranian government on Wednesday accused American officials of “interventionist” statements.

But several administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama might run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.

Clearly, if the President is taking a weak stand on this issue and the Iranian government is still criticizing us, President Obama’s laissez faire posture is not buying us much. I am curious why the objections of the VP and SoS would be voiced in this article? Political cover for the president should he say something and if it doesn’t go his way, he has someone to blame. Or do Clinton and Biden want to get their opposition on the record somehow…

Last night, Bret Baier’s FOX news panel, Juan Williams, Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes weighed in with a most interesting discussion. Certainly, President Obama’s comments at the top of this video sound tepid to the point of being clueless. Update to FOX’s discussion: Moussavi has not asked the protest to disband but has called for another day of protests with participants dressing in black to declare a day of mourning for those killed:

More from the Times:

The administration’s concern over how to calibrate the response to the protests in Iran reflects the competing goals Mr. Obama is trying to balance: keeping faith with democracy advocates in Iran while not staking out a position that is so tough that it kills any chance of engagement with the Iranian government on America’s national security interests, including the Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s support for militant Islamist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Some criticism of the Obama administration’s cautious posture may be politically opportunistic, coming from rivals who are eager to draw distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, to portray the administration as generally weak when it comes to international confrontation.

But Mr. Obama also drew criticism from politically neutral observers when he said in an interview on Tuesday with The New York Times and CNBC that from an American national security perspective, there was not much difference between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi, his closest competitor in the election.
(snip)
Many Iran experts lauded Mr. Obama’s measured stance just after the election. But some of that support evaporated on Tuesday when he said there was not much difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi.

Obviously, Iranian protesters don’t agree, otherwise they would not have taken to the streets.

“For Barack Obama, this was a serious misstep,” said Steven Clemons, director of the American strategy program at the New America Foundation. “It’s right for the administration to be cautious, but it’s extremely bad for him to narrow the peephole into an area in which we’re looking at what’s happening just through the lens of the nuclear program.”

Mr. Obama’s comments deflated Mr. Moussavi, who is rapidly becoming a political icon in Iran, even supporters of Mr. Obama’s Iran policy say.

“Up until now, the president had very thoughtfully calibrated his remarks on Iran, but this was an uncharacteristic and egregious error,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “People are risking their lives and being slaughtered in the streets because they want fundamental change in the way Iran is governed. Our message to them shouldn’t be that it doesn’t make much difference to the United States.”

Certainly we do have to exercise caution when remarking about the electoral process of other countries. It just strikes me that if we are proclaiming to be the beacon of democracy and tout free and fair elections, at the very least, it would be a good idea to speak out against slaughter.

What say you?

President Obama doesn’t only bow to the Saudi king.

He’s now bowing to the theocracy in Iran as well, by spinelessly acquiescing to their demand to remove Dennis Ross from his position as US envoy.

And the president is choosing to do this at perhaps the most dangerous moment that Iran’s theocracy has faced in the thirty-year history of the Islamic republic.

His misguided touchy-feeliness empathy with the scumbag dictators of the world is now getting scary.

There are two things about Ross that don’t exactly please the mad mullahs.

One is that his new book, Myths, Illusions, and Peace – Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East, backs the possible use of military force against Iran.

And the other is that he’s Jewish. Which, in my mind, makes Ross the perfect choice for ambassador to Iran, never mind any lesser position.

Madeleine Albright, though nothing special in herself, was a masterstroke of an appointment for being female and Jewish – having her represent the most powerful country on Earth made Middle Eastern tyrants confront the two things they hate most in the same person. Awesome.

Obama is doing the exact opposite here.

More so even than acts of strength, acts of weakness on this scale are never forgotten.

We realize she’s just a woman, and we know already how much they mean to Barack Obama.

But she was arrested for buying a bottle of wine in our “newly found” friendly country, that bastion of women’s rights, Iran. Now, we all know how well women are regarded over there. In fact, she was arrested when Annete Bening did her “Bridge” photo op over there. Funny, I never read any mention of Saberi from Annette. I guess she didn’t know…..

Meanwhile, Ms. Saberi continues with her hunger strike. I don’t blame her. It beats living at the hands of those animals

So far, from President Obama, we have gotten the thing we get most of from him: Lip service. I suppose Saberi could just die on her own volition so that Obama won’t have to be bothered with this nonsense any longer. Then he could look into the camera, and read from his teleprompter about how “My heart goes out to the family”….while his eyes revealing his complete boredom as they so often do,

Here’s a video of a Northwestern University demonstration demanding Saberi be freed.

…..and here is the response they got from the White House

The L.A. Times’s “In Baghdad visit, Clinton reassures Iraqis” points out:

Reporting from Baghdad — During an unannounced visit to Baghdad on Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to reassure anxious Iraqis that the U.S. would not abandon them despite plans to start withdrawing U.S. troops soon.

Her visit coincided with a sudden surge of violence that had claimed the lives of nearly 160 people in the previous two days. But Clinton said she was confident that the bloodshed did not mean recent gains in security were being eroded.

The UPDATE is just below the fold:

UPDATE: Via Swoop.net, a most fascinating Web site that — in case Swoop is new to you — is “a multi-lingual source of intelligence about US international policy: political, military, financial and commercial” that “is produced by the Washington Assessment and Analysis Service (WAAS). WAAS brings together seasoned practitioners – American and European – who enjoy insider access to the centers of power in Washington DC. Having occupied positions that afford them intimate knowledge of how US policies are formulated and how outcomes are determined, Swoop’s writers have established expertise in interpreting US positions to global audiences.” (I subscribe to its weekly newsletter which comes out on Sunday mornings.)

As the US military begins to shift its focus to a new war in Afghanistan, a recent spike in violence in Iraq has some military commanders worried that their Afghan strategy could falter.

Even though President Obama has repeated his commitment to have US combat forces withdraw from Iraq over the next 19 months, potential cracks in the timeline have emerged. US Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, stated earlier this month that he has the “flexibility to change” the withdrawal schedule should events on the ground warrant it. Although changes in the proposed timeline would require Iraqi approval, some US officials worry that a series of unresolved political disputes may call for further US attention.

Chief among the internal challenges is violence targeting Sunni Awakening groups, the so-called Sons of Iraq, as well as a widening rift between Kurdish and Arab communities. Months of paralysis at the national level have also stalled legislative reforms, including the passage of a hydrocarbon law which, coupled with declines in oil revenues, will deepen the country’s economic crisis.

As Iraq’s competing factions work to secure their positions ahead of the American withdrawal, multinational companies also remain cautious about entering the Iraqi market. Concerned about the country’s stability and long-time climate, only few multinationals have engaged in exploratory projects. In Baghdad and Washington, military commanders and politicians are quietly fretting that unresolved governance issues and mounting sectarian tensions will test Washington’s exit strategy.

BELOW is more from the Los Angeles Times article, an excellent report. First, here’s the photo up at the State Department Web site:

Shortly after arriving in Baghdad, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received a briefing by Commanding General Ray Odierno. To her left, in the seated photo, is newly arrived U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher R. Hill. Photo: Eric W. Brooks, U.S .Embassy Baghdad

Secretary Clinton has arrived in Baghdad, Iraq, April 25. The trip to Iraq is her first as Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton will depart later today for Kuwait.

While in Baghdad, Secretary Clinton will meet with Prime Minister al-Maliki, President Talibani, Deputy President al-Hashimi, Foreign Minister Zebari, and other senior leaders in the Government of Iraq. They will discuss issues of common concern including security, stability operations and assistance.

Secretary Clinton will also meet with Ambassador Christopher Hill and Multinational Force-Iraq Commander Odierno to discuss the Administration’s new direction and change of mission for U.S. forces in Iraq and hold a roundtable with Iraqi women.

And the Secretary will participate in a townhalll with Iraqi citizens who work day in and day out with Provincial Reconstruction Teams, to hear from and discuss with them what they are achieving as well as issues facing the Iraqi people.

Remarks
- 04/25/09 Remarks at the Town Hall Meeting with PRT Leaders and Iraqi Partners

The situation in Iraq is a far more complex matter than at first glance, what with half of those killed recently being Iranian pilgrims and the Iranian government accusing the U.S. of being behind the attacks along with growing resentment by Iraqis of Iranian interference in their country.

Then there’s that Iraqis are worried that the U.S. may be pulling out too soon.

“These are tragic, terrible events, but they don’t reflect any diversion from the security progress that has been made,” [Secretary Clinton] told reporters at a news briefing with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

Clinton’s first visit to Iraq as secretary of State came the day after two suicide bombers killed 71 people at a Shiite Muslim shrine. The previous day, 88 people died in two other bombings, stirring fear that the insurgency is recovering its strength as U.S. forces are preparing to leave.

Nearly half the victims were Iranian pilgrims who were visiting Iraqi shrines. On Saturday, Iran’s supreme leader accused the United States of carrying out the attacks.

“The main suspects in this crime and crimes similar to that are American security and military forces who ruthlessly occupied the Muslim country under the umbrella of the ‘war on terrorism,’ ” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said. …

Many Iraqis, regardless of religious or ethnic group, appear to resent the increased role Iran has played in their country since the fall of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. military alleges that some Shiite insurgent groups receive arms and training from Iran.

Khamenei’s accusation may be taken by such militants as a signal to step up attacks on U.S. forces.

Clinton said the ayatollah’s statement was disappointing, and blamed the attacks instead on remnants of the militant group Al Qaeda …

She said Iraq could continue to count on U.S. support, albeit in different forms.

“The end of the United States combat presence in Iraq by 2011 will mark the beginning of a new phase of our countries’ relationship. As we draw down militarily, we will deepen our civilian cooperation,” she said. ….

[...]

many Iraqis are concerned that the U.S. is pulling out too soon. At the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy, Clinton held one of the town hall meetings that have become a hallmark of her diplomacy so far, and some members of the invited audience of about 100 Iraqis expressed their anxieties.

“Frankly, some people are afraid and concerned,” one Iraqi stood up and told her. “There are so many people who don’t trust the Iraqi security forces.”

Clinton responded that Iraqis needed to set aside their sectarian differences so they could learn to trust their security forces. “The more united Iraq is, the more you will trust the security forces,” she said.

Another member of the audience asked whether the U.S. was engaged in a “kind of retreat” from Iraq. Clinton replied that America remains “very committed” to the country. …

This is a fascinating report: “In Baghdad visit, Clinton reassures Iraqis.”

I have returned from my most fabulous, awesome Mediterranean cruise. I was met by three of the puppies (Lucky, Lani, and Leila), who are BIG now, running up and down the stairs to go outside, running all over the yard, playing, playing, playing. So cute. Hopefully, we’ll find homes soon that will work out (a few fell through). In the meantime, romping around and cuddling on them is fine by me!

So, this cruise was amazing – we left from Barcelona, and went to Rome, Athens, Izmir (Ephesus), Alexandria, Cairo, and Malta. Just in case you were wondering, yes, I do have a photo of me on a camel in front of the Pyramids (the wind was blowing like crazy – hence my hair all over my head, as we say down South):

While a cliche, it is absolutely true that this was a trip of a lifetime – the sights we saw, the people we met, the history we learned all combined for an incredible time.

And we did meet some very interesting people on the cruise. I want to tell you about two sets of them, one funny as all get out, and the other definitely more serious. So, the first was a Canadian couple we met while eating in the French restaurant on board ship. They were sitting at a window, and we were at the table next to them. We’d done the nod and smile thing already, when my partner just started cracking up. The man had his dessert plate tilted up with a spoon in his hand, trying to get every last drop of his dessert. He said, “What? Ice cream and booze – what more could you want?” They ended up joining us for our chocolate fondue, and much hilarity ensued.

The second couple was Iranian, living in Canada to escape their current regime. The wife was a lovely, affectionate woman (I thought we Southerners were touchy – not even close – it was so dear the way she would gently grasp my arm while telling me something important). She told us that they had to flee from their homeland after her father-in-law was executed for being a “spy for Israel.” She said that was the charge they always used – being a spy for Israel. Her father-in-law had never stepped foot outside of Iran. Ever.

She then brought up the young reporter, Roxana Saberi, the American/Iranian who was sentenced to 8 years in prison for being an American spy, seen here:

Our Iranian friend said that Iranian prisons are absolutely deplorable, disgusting places, ones we could scarcely imagine, and in which life would be very hard on this 34 year old woman. Ahmadinejad has said that she can appeal. Yeah. I’m sure that’s going to go in her favor. Ahem.

She is not the only one, though. There has been far less press on this (at least that I have seen), but there is a Californian grad student, Esha Momeni, who is being detained in Iran. She was working on her Master’s thesis there and was picked up on a traffic violation (alleged). She also holds both American and Iranian citizenship. And, she, too, is being accused of going against national security. How? She was meeting with women’s advocate groups and filming them when her life took this turn. Her communication is being monitored, her video footage and computer confiscated. Wow.

That certainly coincides with what our new friend at dinner volunteered. She said that life for women in general in Iran has gotten much, much worse under the current regime. Before, women were much freer to study, travel, and work, but now, they have gone far, far back. These two recent cases seem to confirm her opinion. The treatment of women combined with what happened to her father-in-law, prompted them to leave the land of their birth. They are waiting, hoping, for a better time so they can return in safety.

That is but a quick glimpse of my adventures abroad. You know I’ll be writing more about it as time goes by, but I did want to pop in and say hey, I missed writing, for sure, and your comments. And it’s good to be home again.

The Kim regime follows the stunt of its paymasters in Tehran by moving to prosecute American journalists.

You recall that last week the Tehran Twelvers condemned Roxana Saberi of New Jersey and North Dakota to eight years in Ervin Prison for spying.

Now the Kim regime will prosecute American journalists (for Al Gore’s TV network) Laura Ling and Euna Lee, whom North Korean thugs abducted on the China/North Korean border several weeks back.

Gordon Chang, Forbes.co, will report Sunday 26 on the Kim regime’s routine and predictable provocations in order to wring concessions and cash from the Six Party Talks.

This past week, the IAEA finally admitted to the obvious and declared North Korea a nuclear weapon state capable of miniaturizing warheads to mount on the recently tested Taepodong IRBM. The Kim regime and the Tehran regime move in tandem, the servant and the lord.

How soon until Ling and Lee are condemned to eight years in prison for spying? How soon until the IAEA declares that the Tehran Twelvers are a nuclear capable state with miniaturized warheads for the Shahab-3 IRBM? The Obama administration provides no fresh answers. It moves to engage the Twelvers in a sterile dialogue even as it exhales in despair at the mischief of the Kim regime. This is a freshly convenient ignorance of the evil-doing duo.  The eastern Syria nuke site that Israel struck on September 6, 2007 was built by North Korea technicians and was paid for by Tehran.  Berlin, Tokyo and Rome worked the same game seventy years back.

BELOW, MORE HILLARY on Obama’s friendliness towards Hugo Chavez, the case of former FBI agent Robert Levinson, Turkey and Armenia, and Indonesia and the U.S. — even our policy on “hurricane hunters”!

“Clinton: Imperative to Stop Iran on Nukes”
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is an imperative for the United States, which is taking a more active role in pursuing that goal. (April 22)”

“Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) raises three issues to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a House Foreign Affairs Committee – missing constituent Robert Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007; the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia; and the importance of fostering a strong relationship between the United States and Indonesia.”

“Congressman Mike Pence questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the recent summit in Latin America where President Obama was photographed shaking hands and warmly greeting Hugo Chavez. This exchange took place during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.”

“Congressman Ron Klein discusses the international issue of hurricane hunters with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”

From The John Batchelor Show blog pages.