Posts Tagged ‘State department’

Upon imminent return from public service to private citizenry, Bill Richardson, retiring Governor of New Mexico, has failed to take a page from the book of his former friend and boss, William Jefferson Clinton. Rather than marketing his wares in the NGO sphere to better the lives of the unfortunate, he has chosen to campaign most bizarrely, for a cabinet post in the Obama administration. Oddest of everything about this effort, is that he is applying for the position currently occupied and so well executed, by WJC’s brilliant, beautiful, charming, and effective wife, the most admired woman of the year for the ninth year straight, one Hillary Rodham Clinton, Village Chief of Hillaryhood, and our Head Homegirl.  What is this guy thinking?  Or is he?  Thinking, I mean.

Here is a good article that refutes the rumor and traces its genesis:

How Richardson-to-replace-Clinton rumors started By Matthew Reichbach

I do not doubt for a moment that if we dig down far enough it is Richardson himself that is at the bottom of this.  He is angry that Bill Clinton has cut him off cold, and that after his “heroic” (in his book)  trip to North Korea where he “averted nuclear war,” as he told it on CNN, he did not get a tumble from the Secretary of State.  When asked if he had met with her afterwards, he squirmed and said he met with “high officials” at State.   Right, but not the highest one.  She would not have him on a silver platter!

The idea that the most admired woman and, as President Obama put it, “the best Secretary of State ever” would leave her post, when one thing we all know and love about her is that she is not a quitter, is ridiculous.  Nonsense!

While I am at it, I would like to put a cork in this one as well:

Hillary Clinton – Made For Comfort, Not Speed!

One sure sign of the kind of weight gain this article purports is a new wardrobe.  Last January, when she came back to D.C. after Christmas, she wore this beautiful new outfit.

Here we see her on December 14 at the State Department with South African FM Mashabane.  Same outfit, same fit.

This is not someone who “has piled on 40 extra pounds in the past few months” as this article states.  She is still wearing the same outfits that we have seen on her for two years as SOS, and she looks fabulous!

This is NOT what 171 punds looks like on her frame.  I know a lot of much younger women who would not mind having that body.

She looks gorgeous, so lay off, Enquirer and Showbizspy!  Pick on somebody else (like Bill Richardson).  Pictures do not lie, and our eyes do not deceive us.  The SOS is in fine form!

*rant over*

Read Full Post »

Today, my dear friend Dr. Mary K. Sandford bestowed a name on the village where all of Hillary’s Homegirls and Homeboys live.  It is “Hillaryhood!”  This is our “hood,”  where we all thrive,  and where this lovely lady is our Village Chief.  It is also a state of mind and a form of relationship  It is perfect on so many levels!  Thank you so much, Mary, for the appellation!

Read Full Post »

This is cross-posted at  Still4Hill. I wanted to put it here also as a reminder to the LGBT community that Secretary Clinton fights for LGBT rights here and all over the world.

Pictured here with Secretary of Defense Gates, a fellow proponent of repeal of DADT, Secretary Clinton tonight released a concise statement in support of today’s  vote in the Senate to repeal  DADT.  Here is her statement. Short, sweet, and to the point.

Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 18, 2010

This is a historic step forward for all Americans, a step toward a more perfect union and a more perfect reflection of our core values. As the President and I have repeatedly said, we are committed to universal standards abroad and here at home. Our progress on equality here strengthens our advocacy for human dignity everywhere.

Related stories:

Senate Repeals Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Reid: Suspend DADT Discharges Now

Lieberman And Collins On DADT Repeal: This Is A Civil Rights Bill

Read Full Post »

John Bolton doesn’t like Hillary Clinton.  He really, really doesn’t like her,  and he will grab any chance before him to remind us of that.  While his attack on her in an Op-Ed published today in the UK Guardian holds no surprises,  it does deserve a reproach from the Department of Homegirl Security along with a correction.

Although the main target of the piece is Barack Obama,  the opportunist Mr. Bolton not only seizes the moment to go off topic onto Secretary Clinton, but, in doing so,  misinterprets and twists her words (or reads them selectively) and inappropriately places the entire blame for what he sees as an inadequate response by the Obama administration to the Wikileaks document dump on her lovely and already overburdened shoulders.   Of course this kind of textual cherry-picking is a big reason why the Still4Hill blog * depends upon the Secretary’s own words rather than articles about them, and DeHoS does not single out every article for analysis.  Most often, they are accurate if unnecessarily unbalanced.  In this particular case, not so.

On 29 November, secretary of state Hillary Clinton lamented that this third document dump was “not just an attack on United States foreign policy and interests, [but] an attack on the international community”. By contrast, on 1 December, the presidential press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said the White House was “not scared of one guy with one keyboard and a laptop”. Hours later, a Pentagon spokesman disdained the notion that the military should have prevented the WikiLeaks release: “The determination of those who are charged with such things, the decision was made not to proceed with any sort of aggressive action of that sort in this case.”

Clinton is demonstrably incorrect in being preoccupied with defending the “international community”, whatever that is. Her inability to understand WikiLeaks’ obsession with causing harm to the US is a major reason why the Obama administration has done little or nothing in response – except talk, its usual foreign-policy default position.

Read the article>>>>>

First of all, he ignores her use of the word “just” meaning “only.” Of course she recognizes this as an attack on the U.S., but, given her post as Secretary of State (as opposed to Secretary of Defense or Director of Homeland Security) as well as the sources of the documents released by WL she is absolutely correct in pointing out the implications for the foreign governments and populations with which her Department communicates.

Further, it is erroneous to charge that she shapes the administration response.  The last time I looked, when Robert Gibbs spoke, he did so from the White House press room and was speaking for the White House not for the State Department or the Secretary of State.

When the Secretary of State releases a statement, provided she does not deliver the message herself, she does not do so through Gibbs, but, most often, through P.J. Crowley.  He makes his announcements, not  from the White House press room, but rather from the press room at the State Department.

To call her “preoccupied with defending the international community” is senseless and inaccurate.  The international community is her purview.  Bolton would be the first  to attack her if she dipped her little pinkie toe into a domestic situation.   What we have seen over the past week is not a defense of that community so much as an attempt to reassure friends,allies, and also those we would like to have as friends, that we are trustworthy partners.

As for “preoccupation,”   Bolton’s preoccupation with the popular, respected, diligent Secretary Clinton has all the earmarks of sour grapes.  HIs Wikipedia entry reads thus.

He served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 until December 2006 on a recess appointment.[1] He resigned in December 2006 when his recess appointment would have ended[2] [3] because he was unable to gain confirmation from the Senate.[4][5]

Coming from an unconfirmed, short term, place-filler the allegations seem rooted more in envy than in  reasoned inquiry.  Bolton’s interest in Secretary Clinton’s career betrays  less the character of serious patriotic rebuttals and more the behavior of the fourth-grade boy who,  frustrated that the Tracy Flick of the class always gets it right, dips her pigtail in the inkwell.   (OK, I know, we don’t have inkwells anymore.  We don’t even use ink! We have power wells in the most up-to-date classrooms, but you catch my drift.)  Usually, the boys who do things like that harbor a secret crush,  but the behavior is abusive, and Bolton can take his hard-on for Hillary Clinton and, well, shove it!  She does not deserve this attack and has responded to the WL situation most appropriately and admirably.  She has had a rough week what with WL, North Korea, and a four-day trip thrown in for good measure, and she has come out of it glowing.    Thank you for your hard work,  Mme. Secretary!  And thanks for nothing,  Ambassador Bolton.  It is pretty clear why the Senate withheld that title from you.

Now you KNEW I would not end this without a picture of the Homegirl-in-Chief!  Here she is at her Kennedy Honors Gala Dinner last night.

*The full text of the Secretary’s statement can be found here>>>>

Read Full Post »

I have been avoiding, and will probably continue to avoid, addressing specific documents in the Wikileaks document-dump. For one thing, I prefer to read and post Secretary Clinton’s own words in context rather than some news org’s interpretation of them. For another, Mme. Secretary is doing a fine job, diplomat that she is, of addressing the situation on her own, and I have posted her remarks at Still4Hill.

This aspect of the story, however, does deserve attention from the Department of Homegirl Security.  If you go back in the archives here to June, 2009, you will see a post where yours truly mentions a number of  Tweeters expressing undying love for Hillary Clinton based on her extension of benefits to domestic partners of State Department employees.  In that post, and in the ensuing comments, Homegirls and Homeboys discussed the obvious: The true champion of the LGBT community in the Obama administration is clearly Hillary Clinton.

If you do a search on this blog for LGBT, you will find posts citing Secretary Clinton’s outreaches and inclusions of this community both within her department and globally.  That it was a member of this community, disgruntled perhaps for having been passed over, who targeted our Homegirl, a vocal supporter of LGBT rights and repeal of  DADT is the unkindest irony of this situation.  He wanted to give her a heart attack.  Really?  Sad.  Very sad.

Man behind the bombshell: A disgruntled US soldier

WASHINGTON:Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,”Bradley Manning is said to have boasted once. “Everywhere there’s a US post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed.”


What caused a young man from Oklahoma to undertake a feat of betrayal or whistleblowing that has convulsed the world? One report attributed it to a troubled youth and army service where he was shunned for being gay although he was politically aware and smart. When his career was going nowhere he is said to have become radicalized and anti-government .

Read more: Man behind the bombshell: A disgruntled US soldier – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Man-behind-the-bombshell-A-disgruntled-US-soldier/articleshow/7013059.cms#ixzz16jX6wBpI

Read Full Post »

I imagine I was not the only Hillary follower who was taken aback to see the very business-like woman pictured here in Lisbon last week with our Mme. Secretary identified as France’s Foreign Minister.   It came as a surprise that Bernard Kouchner no longer occupied that post.  He had developed a cozy enough relationship with Mme. Secretary as to have wormed his way into my heart. So my first reaction was, I have to admit, disappointment that I would no longer be seeing him in bilaterals with Mme. Secretary.

Every once in awhile, instead of having to call somebody on a slight or attack on Hillary or one of her constitutent populations, we have something pleasant to cheer about or some kind of milestone to celebrate here at DeHoS.  So, after I recovered from my initial shock and nostalgia for Bernard, I came to realize that with the face of European diplomacy suddenly including more lipstick ,  the nature of Mme. Secretary’s diplomacy undergoes an interesting shift from the flirtatious smart power we have seen with the men, to the power of sisterhood we now see with France, Spain, Denmark, and South Africa among others.  (Now do not all go jumping all over me for saying she flirts, because she does.  It is an established fact, and I find nothing whatsoever wrong with it.)

This morning’s briefs from Foreign Policy Magazine include an interesting profile of France’s new FM Michèle Alliot-Marie,  affectionately known as MAM.   There appear to be a number of similarities with our Homegirl-in-Chief.  She has a rugby background.  Hillary’s background is baseball.  She plays on her President’s team rather than forging policy herself.  And she is the kind of powerhouse who can and has headed up other ministries, as FP puts it, a “ministerial grand slam,”  a talent HRC possesses even if it has never been tested.  Bill Clinton has been quoted as remarking that she could fill any cabinet post when he first entered the White House, and Bob Gates attested recently that of course she could run the Pentagon, but he likes the way she uses her diplomatic skills.

So, thanks to Foreign Policy, meet HRC’s new French counterpart, MAM,  Sarkozy’s Iron Lady!

Update: February 27, 2011: She lasted three months. She resigned this morning. Evidently, only a month or so at this post and she caused a scandal by suggesting the French send riot police while she was vacationing in Tunisia during the revolution there.    No,  she was not a Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Not at all!

Read Full Post »

In the jargon of their profession, I suppose news anchors have a name for the last question in an interview. I do not know what they call it, but it appears to be a kind of “free” question off-topic from the boilerplate nature of the body of the interview. If you watched Secretary Clinton on the Sunday talk show circuit this past weekend, you saw her answering pretty much the same questions on the same subjects on all three shows, but at the end, each interviewer threw in a “free” question. Schieffer asked her about airport pat downs (a coup for him, I thought – the cable and network news are still looping that clip). Wallace, lamely I thought, asked her about running for president, and Gregory asked her about Sarah Palin. Here is how it went.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, before I let you go, I have to ask you this just as a political observer. What do you make of what happened on election day? And all this talk about Sarah Palin – when I interviewed you a while back, you said you’d be willing to sit down and have coffee with her. She may be someone who is in a position to try to equal what you accomplished in the political arena. What advice might you give her and what do you make of what’s happened politically?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, David, the best thing about being of Secretary of State is representing the United States around the world, but the second best thing is I’m out of politics. So with all due respect, I am not going to comment on the political scene right now other than to say that I’m focused on making the case to 67-plus senators in the Senate to pass the START treaty because that, to me, is the most important task facing the Senate and it goes way beyond politics.

QUESTION: And here I thought I’d lulled you into a moment of candor. (Laughter.) Secretary Clinton, thank you very much, as always.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, David.

Given an opportunity to remark about Palin, Hillary Clinton gracefully danced around the question, and put her agenda out in front instead, refocusing the moment, and the end of an interview is a powerful moment, on New START, a formidable product of her tenure at State.

I have seen Hillary do this before.   Remember back in 2008?  She was asked about a “lipstick” comment that had been made about Palin and responded, “I like lipstick.  I use it, but let’s fix our financial institutions.”  (Something like that – probably not her exact words.)

So I was befuddled as to why someone whom Hillary Clinton has taken pains NOT to attack has chosen to launch an unprovoked attack  on her.  With the release of Palin’s book today came some excerpts, and this one, for me, is the final straw.

[Palin] says she admires Hillary Clinton, but that her “baking cookies” remarks sounded like “someone frozen in an attitude of 1960s-era, bra-burning militancy.”

You can see more about this section at this Huffpo page>>>>

It is more than harsh. It is an unwarranted, gratuitous, unilateral attack.   Unlike many of us in her generation, Hillary Clinton did not choose the militant route.  While we were shouting at demonstrations, she was studying law.  She was a singularly focused young individual who saw some things that needed to be changed and pursued a route that would equip her to address them.  She was and still is a very disciplined person who found her time better spent in the library than carrying a poster.

I am not disparaging what the rest of us did.  Ultimately, we did, I believe, make America aware of the reasons why we needed to withdraw fron Viet Nam and of the inequities in the culture.  We were noisy while Hillary was quietly studying in the library.

So to brand her with a descriptor like “bra-burning militancy”  is not only inaccurate,  but completely uncalled for since Hillary has not said anything unkind or untoward about Palin.

She has called Hillary a whiner when she herself has whined about her treatment.  Now she brands her unfairly as something she never was.

More than so many of my generation, Hillary Clinton has always been goal-oriented and on-task.  For someone who was not even there to witness the era to brand her this way over a remark she made to explain her personal choice is unacceptable and mean.

This is it, Sarah.  You have crossed the line with me.  I will never defend you again.  The next time I go to B.J.’s I will be turning your pile of books face down and putting a few copies of James Patterson on top so no one will know your book is there.

I dare anyone to tell me I am unfair in calling Sarah Palin on this base and baseless shot at my Homegirl.  She had no reason to talk about Hillary at all.  Hillary does not talk about her.

Read Full Post »

I cannot let the day pass with out addressing this Forbes article:  The Presidency Is “Too Big For One Man”

I have no argument with the header as I have two corollaries:

  • It is too big for one man, the man who currently occupies the post.  It is clearly too big for Baby Bear.  (Sorry, I just cannot resist incorporating Hillary’s “Goldilocks” analogy.)
  • It is not too big for one woman.   I think we all know who that particular woman is.

I do, however, have a huge problem with the conclusion.

Electing someone else to sit in the White House isn’t necessarily going to bring about a federal government that functions better. For that to happen, we need to give our presidents fewer tasks to perform well….

Wait a minute!  Because this president cannot handle the whole job we should water it down?  Farm out the duties?  (He does have a cabinet, after all.)  That is the job.  It is what it is.  We should, because of his incompetence,  initiate what a community college or university would call a “Developmental Presidency?”   Really?

While I agree that  “electing someone else to sit in the White House isn’t necessarily going to bring about a federal government that functions better,” it certainly can meet that objective.   I direct your attention to the newly unveiled QDDR draft here:   Hillary Clinton’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) **Consultation Draft**

I have said it before (some will *sigh*  – yes, endlessly), but I will say it again.  Hillary Rodham Clinton will (I am so finished with the subjunctive on this subject)  order reviews like this in every department and overhaul the Executive Branch in doing so.  SHE will bring the government into the 21st century.

So, yes, it is clearly too much for one man, but not for one woman.  This one. 

Of course, as my header points out, it appears she was not on the radar of Professor Glenn Reynolds nor his Forbes “refudiator”  (Ha! still underlined in red) at Forbes.   The preponderance of masculine markers in the article speaks for itself.

Read Full Post »

Early in her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made it clear that an important component in foreign policy as she intended to fashion it would be issues and challenges facing women and girls the world over.  In her 21+ months as SOS she has deepened, broadened, and elevated that commitment to a cause, a signature issue the likes of which has not been seen on the global stage and so unusual that for a very long time some thought incorrectly that she had no signature issue at all.

Well it is eminently clear now.  So powerful is her message that  this article by AFP’s Madeleine Coorey implies that it may be the primary item on Hillary’s agenda when she visits Papua-New Guinea later this week.

It comes as no surprise to the Homegirls and Homeboys here, but it is gratifying to see Hillary’s Secretarial Crest rise from the waters of Oceania as a target issue.

Here she is this week with residents of the Siem Reap Rehabilitation Shelter for victims of human trafficking.  These young women understand her dedication.


Here is the article by Coorey.

Clinton visit raises hopes for embattled Pacific women

By Madeleine Coorey (AFP)

SYDNEY — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit this week to impoverished Papua New Guinea has raised hopes of a greater focus on tackling shocking levels of violence against women in the Pacific nation.

In a flying visit to Port Moresby on Wednesday, Clinton will “stress the importance of empowering women” in a country rights group Amnesty says suffers from extremely high rates of abuse and discrimination towards females.

“If you are born a woman in PNG you are already at a disadvantage,” University of Papua New Guinea law lecturer Tapora Isorua told AFP.

“The fact that someone of Hillary Clinton’s status is coming to PNG and addressing that issue could… bring the message across to parliamentarians.”

Read more>>>>

Read Full Post »

It is a phenomenon all women experience sooner ot later, married or single,  with a brood or childless.  You say (or think) a sentence, and you realize that your mom has just popped out of your mouth.  It has happened to me before, and this morning, on opening my email, it occurred once again.  There was this compelling product of wordsmithing:

Still4Hill — (My real name here)

We all have a choice to make in the next seven days.

It’s not just a choice to vote, or a choice to knock on one more door, make one more call, talk to one more voter.

Together, the choice we must make is to continue what we started.

The outcome of this election will determine not just who holds power in the halls of Congress. The decision we make in this election is going to set the direction of this country for years to come.

I need you fired up in Metropolis. (My real city here)

Still4Hill, I need you to give it everything you got. And I need your help to power our work until we reach that finish line.

Democrats are running the most ambitious get-out-the-vote program ever attempted in an election like this. Every dollar you can give today will be put right to work to get our message out, to provide the tools our volunteers need.

And every donation will be doubled because it will be matched by another supporter who is giving what he or she can afford.

Will you donate $3 today — and fund the final push?

I know this is a difficult election. It’s because we have been through an incredibly difficult time as a nation, and many are still hurting.

But our opponents in this election are some of the very people who got us into this mess — some of the very people who stood on the sidelines while we worked to clean it up. Now they are promising to pursue the exact same agenda that led us into this crisis.

It’s an agenda that was written by and for the special interests that have fought this movement at every turn. Worse, these groups that stand to profit from the Republican agenda are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to influence this election — flooding the airwaves with misleading ads to attack our best allies.

It’s up to each of us to raise our voices to beat them back.

So if you care about the critical reforms we made to a broken health care system, I need your voice.

If you care about fighting for middle class families, and building a country where opportunity is shared by everyone — I need your voice.

If you care about climate change — and a future where clean-energy technology is built right here in America — I need your voice.

If you share a vision of America that says I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper — I need your voice.

I did not run for this office for the sake of winning an election. And you did not join me in this fight two years ago to quit now.

I know we’ve asked a lot of you in the last few months. You have come through time after time. But I can promise you this: There is one week to go — what all of you do right now will decide this election.

So, if you believe in the change we have made together, I need you to stand behind it. If you believe we are not finished seeking that change, I need you to choose to fight for it.

Please donate $3 or more — and let’s finish strong in the last seven days:


Thank you,


“Lord give me patience!” Voice of mom came out of my mouth.  Of course I had not expected that the previous post here about the lost art of etiquette would change the insistently rude and ignorant path these folks have chosen, and I was floored to see, in my own mailbox, a request like the one Uppity Woman referred to in the comment thread on that post: Three ($3) dollars?  Seriously?  Can he BE any more pitiful?

First, let’s take a look at the vehicle, and you need a little history here.  I joined Moveon.org in 2004 and never bothered to rescind my membership since they promised when they endorsed Obama that they would leave me, a Hillary supporter, alone.  Weeellllll (voice of Lucy Ricardo) not really.  They did bother me again after Denver, and they gave my email addy to Organizing for America the agency serving as the collection arm for my requested $3.

Moveon.org served as the vehicle to deliver my invitation to Obama Camp in 2008.  They seemed to think I had the mentality of a fifth grader (a male one, at that, based on some Ralphie Parker prototype) who would be impressed by having the title “Field Organizer,”  and there was a not-so-veiled threat of ominous consequences should I accept this weekend of training on their dime,  and then go AWOL when ordered to my assigned battleground state.  Just charming.  How could  possibly resist?

I should not be surprised if they now think I am in Middle School and can scrape together $3 somehow.

Secondly, let’s take a look at the content.  I need to get this one off my plate ASAP:

“I did not run for this office for the sake of winning an election.

Really? Somehow that does not quite jell with the fact that  Obama has spent months (I have not been counting, but the past 18 is a conservative estimate), not weeks, Rachel Maddow, months “campaigning” which often consists of barking and yelling at the American people. Once again, charming.

As Hillary Clinton departs again today and enters her 22nd month of tireless travel signing treaties all over the globe,  her administration does not lift a single pinkie-finger to push those treaties through Congress.  Monumental among these is the New START Treaty which Hillary and Sergei Lavrov and their teams hammered out over a long series of months and meetings.  Obama was happy enough to fly off to Prague to sign it last April, but where is the follow-up?  (I won’t bother you with his picture here.  I didn’t save any.  Hillary was radiant at what she and Lavrov had accomplished, and for my $3 … or more, she is MUCH easier on the eyes.)  Vital here is the protective nature of this treaty.  But, of course, I suppose it is too much to expect START to get in the way of campaigning.

The Obama administration has the worst record for treaty ratification in fifty years.  The president has been so busy campaigning and telling us we have to “do better” that while he had a majority in both houses, he failed to use it to the advantage of his supposed platform

Now, I receive these marching orders.  Before I jump ten feet in the air, what does his platform consist of?

  • Shared opportunity
  • Climate change
  • I am my brother’s/sister’s keeper. (Wha’?????)

I have no idea what that last is supposed to mean,  but as my sister’s keeper, I would like to see something on there about how her hard work COULD be protecting us IF he would just mount an effort to push START through.

If anyone thinks it will be an easier push after November 2, dream on.  That is when he will likely try to call in Big Dawg to get a bipartisan approval of Hillary’s treaties.

Third, and finally, there is grammar.  It is bad enough that the niceties of correspondence are once again ignored.  I thoroughly understand politicians using colloquialisms on the (flawed) theory that it better frames their messages to “the common man (and woman).”  I fail, however, to understand why a supposedly well-educated official would write a sentence like this:

Still4Hill, I need you to give it everything you got.

Everything I got? Got from where, from whom?  As a member of the Nitpicker Society I would have preferred “everything you’ve got” or even the more British “everything you have. ”   But “everything I got?”  So far, I got nothing except a bad impression from a man who purports to stand as a role model for youth.  If these folks really do think I have a seventh grade mentality,  it would be exemplary of them to mind their tense usage in writing to such simple and immature recipients as me (and Ralphie Parker).

Finally, about this upcoming trip to India:  It is rude not to sample the food in a country you are visiting.  The chefs  and owners take great pride in having served you well.   Your Secretary of State knows this very well, not from her whirlwind months of zipping around the globe for you, but from many years of experience in D.C.  Of course I should know better than to expect better since I know what I “got”:  a rude and arrogant POTUS who is the polar opposite of the populist he makes himself out to be.

So Lord, give me patience, to accept the things I cannot change.  Do not make me go down there!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »