Don't you mean Condollezza Rice? (As opposed to Nanci Pelosi and other interloper-troublemakers then.)

The already-asked question is, now, which Clinton will visit Iran and possibly return with the captured hikers, Mr. or Ms.?

The real problems are two.

The first, prompt problem was introduced as soon as Bill Clinton went on the mission to visit North Korea, returning with the teary-eyed, sniffling little libby journalists (causing better members of the public to roll their eyes at the scene back in the USA and the media hype coverage of it). The serious question remains, why _exactly_ did Bill Clinton go there and what _serious_ things were addressed? And why him rather than Hillary Clinton? Ever since then, Hillary Clinton has been weakened by this. Even if there will be angry reaction from the childish, it's easy and delightful humor forever afterward now to wonder aloud and even mention to Hillary Clinton that people might wonder what her husband thinks of this or that.

“And no, Mrs. Clinton, we won't ask you what your husband thinks …”

The second, now-background, problem is just to what extent Obama is marginalizing Hillary Clinton, who is not above (or beneath) challenging him in 2012 for the Democratic Presidential nomination. (In fact, if the Dems had a long-term view on things and thought Obama could be re-elected even if the Dems have more problems related to current misconduct and overreach, a logical strategy would be for Hillary Clinton to be President in 2012, and then for Obama to return in 2016.)

More power to SOS Clinton. It's actually because of her position that she gets to set the tone and say, you know what, we're not talking about ma' spouse here.

As I already wrote, could she have said it differently? You betcha. But I can live with her guard having been down enough that she let herself be real.

Sign the Petition to Request from President Barack Obama That He Remove Ben 'Systemic Risk'Bernanke From Office.

Bernanke was the only cause, I proved, of the Great Recession and probably acted on purpose. He had the mean and motive (The gigantic power he has received.)

Because of the immediate dangers that are evoked in these lines I strongly suggest that you revoke Bernanke.

“I will argue here that, to the contrary, there is much that the Bank of Japan, in cooperation with other government agencies, could do to help promote economic recovery in Japan.

However, their responses, when not confused or inconsistent, have generally relied on various technical or legal objections—- objections which, I will argue, could be overcome if the will to do so existed.“

Prof. Ben Shalom Bernanke
Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis?
For Presentation at the ASSA Meetings, Boston MA,
January 9th, 2000.

“The slowdown in economic activity, together with high interest rates, was in all likelihood the most important source of the stock market crash that followed in October.

Of course, the stock market crash only worsened the economic situation, hurting consumer and business confidence and contributing to a still deeper downturn in 1930.”

Governor Ben S. Bernanke
Money, Gold, and the Great Depression.
At the H. Parker Willis Lecture in Economic Policy, Washington and Lee University,
Lexington, Virginia.
March 2nd, 2004

Revoke Bernanke: Sign the Petition to Request from President Barack Obama That He Remove Ben 'Systemic Risk'Bernanke From Office.

________

Diplomats are supposed to be unruffled under provocation, at least in public. And the US Sec. of State isn't supposed to be arrogantly asserting that our society is better than others, right?

This, in my estimation, was NOT a mistake, was NOT an over reaction, but instead was an excellent bit of diplomacy. They're still trying to figure out whether (yes, whether — even though it is posed here as a given) there was a mistranslation, but the question as posed to her was answered exactly like it should have been.

@BB: “Maybe this was a teachable moment for the SoS”
Or, conversely, maybe this was a teachable moment for the students there — it's entirely inappropriate to defer politely to the husband when it's the wife who is in charge. And the whole argument about “tone” is so typical of how women are expected to behave. Give deference to the male, always be polite even in the face of a frankly rude question, bat your eyes and smile. And they say feminism is no longer necessary here in the US.

People should get used to this – we don't ask Boehner, Steele or Pawlenty what their wives think. We don't ask Milton Friedman what Andrea Mitchell thinks. And people shouldn't ask Andrea what Milton thinks.

21st century folks.

Her reaction was a little odd though. Remember in the campaign when someone asked an awkward question she would smile and laugh it off. She should have stuck to that strategy.

Besides, why blame something like that on a translator? It could have been a cultural thing. No way did that kid who asked the question have access to HRC to apologize afterwards. It just didn't happen, no matter the spin.

HRC has been so protected, so scripted for so long, really her entire adult life, I just don't think she knows how to handle herself off script.