Goin' Fishin'

in the most British meaning of the word, Al, and everyone.  As your resident Mayflower descendants, just let Fai or I know if you want any refereeing on what is "authentic" cuisine for Thursday.  And, actually, there was quite a bit of seafood at that first Thanksgiving, Al, so go nuts with that shrimp.

He comido camarones para el Dia de la accion de gracias por mucho tiempo, Al. Buena opcion-te hace menos dormido para la fiesta! Descansa, que lo mereces mucho...zzzzz...

I still feel Al is right, that the MSM don't "know" as much as they think they do about the Cabinet, etc.  When was the last time they were right about something? And when was the last time u read the truth right here? I rest my case. A decansar.........

Si somos americanos, seremos buenos vecinos;
compartiremos el trigo,seremos buenos hermanos -- canción de Rolando Alarcón

Todos somos americanos.-- Barack Obama

Happy relaxing Al (if you even see this before Monday :-)) and a joyful Thanksgiving to everyone else as well! I'm very thankful for this blog and this community so I couldn't let the day pass without mentioning it.

Here's a wonderful vid about one of the Rolex Award winners about housing she helped develop in Paraguay. It's OT, but it's great to watch nonetheless.

http://rolexawards.com/en/the-laureates/elsazaldivar-home.jsp?cmpid=7

might induce Obama to hold a presser on National Security or foreign policy sooner than later, perhaps including cabinet  announcements.  Already released a boilerplate statement just now. I'm guessing Friday.  I suggest not checking in for a few days lest it spoil the holiday.  Which is obviously not to say that any appointment is more distressing than the tragic violence itself.

to Al, and to all the Field Hands. Enjoy yourself and have a relaxing Thanksgiving (if you celebrate). We all deserve a good vacation.

Mumbai, India. 87 confirmed dead. One of the victims was the police chief, who was investigating the last attack in September. Many reprted held hostage and situation not yet over, per Indian TV news. 

Bush's mindless war on terror has only made it worse for the entire world. I am not sure what Obama will or can do either but I am at least hopeful for an intelligent and studied policy on curbing world-wide terrorism.

amk

I was working in Mumbai when the U.S. invaded Iraq this last time, and at the Taj Hotel no less.   The anger that was developing toward Americans was palpable even at that point, and I started saying I was Canadian to anyone who asked.  Can't imagine how much that anger has festered since then.

Sad news.  Can't understand why so few "leaders" of the world don't realize that you kill terrorism with kindness, not more terrorism.  And the cycle continues...

Wonderful time to give thanks for The Field, and all the Field hands. This is where I come for information, and wisdom, and good humor. Hope all enjoy a few days doing whatever you love best - and are ready for the exciting years ahead.  I especially hope to see Al's book in print soon: The Organizing of the President.

Thanks, Al.

That reporter with the 3-prong question was soooo annoying. I bet he'll be relegated to Fixed News blackout for a while to teach him some manners! I liked how Obama laid the smackdown on him. He also addressed those hand-wringers and instigators riled up over Clinton. 

Compared to Paulson doing the "I don't know nothin' about nothin' shuffle" a little competence and oversight is welcome!

Feliz dia de dar gracias Alberto!

Faith,

it is the job of reporters to be annoying. Also, by being annoying he has elicited a spontaneous response from Obama, which was refreshingly clear (no appointments made yet, right after the reporter mentioned Clinton). So I am very thankful to the reporter for that.

Happy Thanksgiving (whatever you're doing today...) to Al and all of the Fieldhands!

One of the things we're most thankful for IS Al and The Field, or we'd all be insane by now!

XOXO  Pam

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

I stayed in the Oberoi in 2004.  I myself didn't feel hostility toward Americans in India or need to pretend to be Canadian, though there was usually a better rapport when the subject of the election came up and I said I was for John Kerry.  But sorry to say that many of the victims of yesterday's tragedy may have felt the same way the day before.

Surely Bush Administration has been a boon for extremists' recruitment and propaganda.  But for the sake of balance, they were already in India committing massacres when Bush was in the womb and have a deep well of things that drive them to violence.  When Gandhi is on the list of victims, it's hard to think there's a lot that makes them relax.  There's a point at which blaming Bush for everything has the unintended effect of relieving other parties of their own responsibility for sanity.

I confess I know little about India, and the only Indians I know personally are Sikhs.  So I have no idea how much of this piece is accurate, but the stats are alarming if true:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/27-10

1.  From Jed Report 11-19-08.  "Remember election night?  As of around midnight eastern, Barack Obama was leading by 5% and had 54.5 million votes.  Now he's over 67 million, with a 7% margin -- and John McCain has fallen under the 46% threshhold."

2.  From TPM, Josh Marshall 11-21-08.  "Tanking.  While the Republican party had a real image problem leading up to the November election, improbably, it's gotten dramatically worse since the election.  In October, the GOP's favorable/unfavorable was 40%/53%.  Now it's fav. 34%/unfav. 61%.  So almost twice as many people have an unfavorable view of the GOP as a favorable one."

I was pondering with my sister why would the Republicans have an 8 point drop in approvals right after the election.  Her thought was it's because of Obama team's press conferences compared with Bush.  Sort of like a battered woman that doesn't really admit to herself how bad it was until after she leaves the relationship or the before and after pictures from a Jenny Craig weight loss advert.  

Perhaps The Economist summed it up poetically in editorial comment 11-24-08 regarding the economic team appointments courtesy of HuffPo:  "...ah, glorious, glorious competence, how we've missed you".

3.  Take a look at Nate's detailed analysis and chart as to just how deeply progressive/liberal the bulk of Obama's positions are, posted 11-25-08 at 538, Obama's Agenda - The Difference Between Tactics and Strategy. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Happy Thanksgiving.  Enjoy your pumpkin pie.  Be sure to turn the volume up. http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=HY27482779

I wrote this in late October when I was out of the country for five or six weeks and waited until there was an open thread, like now, and no other news to report. I offer it now on a non-news day only as a  'duly noted' item, perhaps something to keep a sly eye on. The ramifications are still relevant, if any of this is true.

------------------------------------------------

I listened to an interview on July 25th about a retired oilman, an unidentified Mr. X, who told the man retelling this conversation what was going to happen to the economy over the next year, and why.

Mr. X made his statements to the interviewer on May 2, 2008. It was stunning info but I declined to repeat it here. It was rumor and fantastical.

The short of it: Oil would rise another $1 at the pump between May and the end of August 2008. Then crude would plummet to $50/barrel. (The mythical bottom of the market?) Gold would drop with it. The Euro would fall against the dollar because the dollar would be artificially propped to accomplish it.

Why? Mr. X said “Iran is really bothering us [...] Iran must be stopped." So. They are going to bankrupt Iran, and the rest of the Arab Middle East. Return them to camel-jockeying. Including Dubai. (Is Halliburton hip to this?) They are going to stop Iran trading in Euros. Reduce the price it gets for its oil. Stop any safety flight to gold, which should be soaring.

According to this retired oilman, because we refused to bomb Iran -- ie: start nuclear WWIII -- they are going to use an economic apocalypse to do the same thing. They were going to wait to see what Bush would do in June and July, but they were pretty sure he didn’t have the political capital to pull it off.

So they would take care of it another way. The man said on May 2, "America will see a financial collapse. [...] It will take years for America to come out of the financial condition."**

They are going to "create new cultures," new world-class economies, by the 'discovery' of oil in other parts of the world, which he claims dwarfs Middle East output. America could twist in the wind, and so what. National toilet paper. All balled up.

These oil field discoveries would allow them to flood the world with cheap oil from oil fields they would announce soon north of Russia and in Indonesia, and render the expense of pursuing alternative fuel in the US too costly. Mr. X apparently declared that "America will be kept dependent on foreign oil." The fields were already discovered; it remained to announce them. He said they will not allow the huge Montana and Utah fields, the North Slope, or any American fields, to be developed.

A monstrous field north of Russia was announced on July 24, 2008, the day before this show. The Indonesia fields were announced October 17, along with an infusion of an extra $500 million in loan cash from the World Bank the same day for a total of $1.9 billion for Indonesian infrastructure secured with Indonesia’s resources. [I’ve been watching this.] A Canadian company was given four of the 22 announced Indonesian oil fields to develop. The four equal the size of Texas and California. The headlines on October 17 were “Indonesia grants Niko exploration dream” and “World Bank Increases Loan to Indonesia.”

So I’ve been watching this meltdown with different eyes: the inconceivable fact that gold went down in this market and the dollar is rising against all world currencies except the yen when we caused these problems. Or the Russian oligarchs partying on a yacht offshore this weekend (late Oct) with the Rothchilds (Lord Jacob Rothschild runs former Yukos oil chief and Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s shares while he’s in a Siberian jail,) oilmen, and British pols that captivated the BBC an entire weekend in late Oct because no one could find out why they were meeting; they weren’t talking. The fact that the market is behaving against all economic fundamentals. (30-year swaps are negative?! Hunh?)

On a more interesting note. F. William Engdahl wrote a fascinating article under his Financial Tsunami section: “Behind the Panic: Financial Warfare over Future of Global Bank Power.”

Well worth the read. I discovered that Paulson started his political life before Goldman Sachs working for John Erlichman (the Plumber’s Unit) under Nixon. He escaped Watergate unscathed while his boss went to jail. Engdahl gave a fascinating radio interview, as well, in which he said he believes that the Germans, in particular, are onto Paulson, refuse to cave under his hyperventilated panic, or adopt his questionable solutions that benefit no one but himself and his WS buddies. Engdahl said specifically that Paulson may have overplayed his hand, and implied that what Paulson is doing, as he wrote in his article, is “actually moving according to a well-thoughtout long-term strategy,” but others are now onto him.

_______________________________

** Just reporting what the guy said. Do not take this as fact. Sunlight and anger will go a loong way to putting these arrogant bastards in jail. But you need to know: The World Bank and IMF set the oil prices, not oil companies -- oil is the global national security currency, not gold -- and use companies like Goldman Sachs and others in NYC and the City of London to work the markets based on them, then entrap countries/economies by demanding national resources as collateral for loans based on the price of oil, usually a new low price of oil, so start there. Why do you think Wolfowitz ever wanted the World Bank job? (Latin America has wisely kicked the World Bank and IMF out, and replaced them with their own equivalent.) This is all chess. But the players disguise themselves, and count on knee-jerk reactions of the populace to falsely identify who is doing what and panic. Stay cool. These phucks didn’t factor in the internet: info and knowledge. And some smart people using it. Neither did they factor in the changing consciousness of the 21st C.

responsible for the uptick in the islamist terrorist attacks since 9/11. Their ham-handed war on terror post 9/11 has been the motivating cause for the terrorists world over, including India.

For you to imply that terrorism was embedded in India since the days of Gandhi (who by the way was killed by a Hindu, not a muslim) is like saying assasins were embedded in US politics since Lincoln/Kennedy days.

amk

Sorry Alexa,

this has the marks of 'world conspiracy talk' all over it. It does not check out as a whole, although likely some bits of truth are woven in. Why does Mr X spell the beans in an interview? If the story is true he would be dead by now for spilling it. And for you it is third hand knowledge. Also, it behove the left to not assign superhuman powers to the right. While I certainly to trust them to individually to be as evil as can be, I do not trust them to be so organized as to run the world flawlessly. There are contradictory tendencies and interests on the right as well.

You couldn't make this stuff up. GM asks FAA to block public access to plane information:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=worldwide&sid=afrK...

I'm open to learning more about what Alexa writes - & keeping an open mind about it too.

I don't dispute that Bush's foreign policy helped create a more fertile breeding ground for terrorists but there's also a tendency in some to blame him at the expense of other actors.  This would be like blaming primarily Osama Bin Laden for the invasion of Iraq since 9/11 created the climate that facilitated the selling of the war.

I know Gandhi was killed by a Hindu but my point is that one not need be a hawk to inspire the violence of fundamentalists.  Obviously this is the case for Muslim militants as well who throw acid in the faces of school girls.  There is a history of religious maniacs committing violence in India that is independent of Bush.  The massacres by and of Hindus and Muslims that has been occurring in India of late was occurring in the 40s.  Bush isn't responsible for the conflict over Kashmir which has left so many dead in its wake.  Fanaticism is.  And even terror against US targets including the planning of 9/11 predated the Bush presidency.  Again, I'm not quarreling with the notion that his foreign policy exacerbates the problem, just with the idea of pretending there is no problem without him.

Specific things in Obama's speech against the Iraq War in 2002, his discussion about an Israeli-Palestinian process, and in his explanation for refraining from saber-rattling suggests to me that he is more cognizant of the psychodynamics of terror breeding and propaganda.  But let's not naively imagine a world without Bush is a world without Islamic fundamentalism.  I do think things will be better with Obama as president and am inclined to believe the interpretation of the latest Al Qaeda messages as tipping their anxiety that he'll take some wind out of their sails.  But sadly, they also have a motor.

I don't often find myself agreeing with the Wall Street Journal, but I found this to be a very sensible piece on the problems of Hillary as SoS:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122783202017862989.html

(I think WSJ articles are only online for free for a few days, fyi.)

"Having made the grand gesture, Mr. Obama can now only get rid of Mrs. Clinton at risk of another party rift. The president-elect now owns Mrs. Clinton’s past, and future, behavior. That could turn out to be some deal."

I was actually surprised to read this... This is what has been pointed out here all along.

This article is dispassionate in its analysis, unlike the hype that has surrounded the prospect of Senator Clinton as SOS so far.

I seem to recall that right around the time this rumor broke there were a few initial reports which stated that they [BHO & HRC] discussed "several" roles in which she could play in an Obama administration. Secretary of State was just one of them. I also recall in an early report that Senator Clinton's initial reaction when asked about a possible Secretary of State role was that of "surprise".

Since then she has been quietly coy while the circus rages on around her. Even Bill Clinton's insertion into the fray seems to have been brief. After only about 2 days he was abruptly "snuffed". The media are the ones keeping this one alive. Even Howard Dean, on the several occasions he has been asked about a potential role in the Obama Administration, stated that if he were to have a role he is smart enough to know not to talk about it, essentially neither confirming nor denying.

Everything has been going on behind the scences, as it should be. And the MSM, desperate for a story, any story, has stubbornly clung onto the Secretary of State meme (absent other possibilities) and cherry picked information because it fits into thier meme. They must believe that if they say it often enough it will be so. I kind of think that the MSM, like the comedians, do not think that a "No Drama" Obama Administration will not be good for the lazy thinkers of their profession. Ouch, my brain hurts! : ) But reporters like Richard Wolfe of Newsweek appear kind of excited when David Gregory concluded last week that during an Obama Administration our discussions will most likely be narrowly focused in depth policy discussions instead of discussions about flag pins.

The WSJ article concludes that President Elect Obama is now boxed in whether he picks her or not. I do not completely agree. I would respectfully submit that there could potentially be another role for her to play to neutralize all of this drama. We have been so focused like a laser on her potential role as the Secretary of State or in the Senate that we have overlooked many other possibilities or scenarioes.

Hope you all are "goin' fishin' like Al.  I just finished watching the "Stephen Colbert Christmas Special" on Comedy Central and I swear that's the funniest thing I've seen for a long time.  He puts SNL to shame.  If you get a chance to see a repeat or buy the DVD you won't be disappointed. 

Here are two songs from it but all the songs weave together for the hour long episode of him trapped in his mountain cabin because there's a bear outside and he can't get to NYC to record his special. 

Willie Nelson - the 4th Wise Man

John Legend, a R&B (roots and berries Ranger) sings about the necessity of nutmeg as an eggnog topping.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/211025/november-23-2008/a-colbert-christmas--john-legend

Like Catherine, I wish you all a good post Turkey day.

Hope you all click over at jackandjillpolitics.com.  They have a 8 minute video clip of President-Elect Obama and family visiting the school kids where he gave out food on Wednesday.  It's too cute!!!

For those who have been mentioning her name as of late... here is an article from the AP that says she has been brought back into the fold...

Of course the article also continues to push Hillary for SOS.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gBpcYuzkAvUs73pgP7rAa1...

although still anonymous sources

"It’s finally official: President-elect Obama will appear with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in Chicago on Monday as he names her secretary of state, a remarkable reunion of once-bitter rivals.

The news conference at a Chicago hotel is scheduled to being at 10:40 a.m. Eastern."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/16057.html

KD

It's Clinton.You were wrong, Al.

Yup --sounds official.  I'm going to believe that Obama did it to neutralize her ability to create problems in the Senate.  Maybe she will be required to read intelligence reports and such before she makes sweeping pronouncements about the countries of the world.

I will be interested to see how Al thinks Obama can manage her ego and hawkish philosophy that she's had since her college days.

Really nice insight into Obama's character and approach to problem solving. Having grown up in a wide variety of environments and spent a lot of time abroad in early adulthood, this really rings true and I think helps to explain why I feel so attached to this guy. Article is from a very nicely put together new news aggregator called Daily Beast.

I agree with that Daily Beast article. Was surprised that many Obama's picks had the same childhood experiences. It's my experience as well.

But even without leaving the country, I firmly believe every kid in the US should be required to learn Spanish and Mandarin starting in Grade One -- or any romance language and a pictographic language -- when learning a new language is no more problematic than learning schoolyard slang.  And starting now, if this country has any hope in its progeny's ability to compete globally.... This was shown at Sony BMG's executive meeting in Rome this year (fun to watch).

The Daily Beast is editor Tina Brown's new effort.

====================

@ Sophie: And for you it is third hand knowledge. So you assume.

I recommend this article by Tony Karon reviewing John Carlin’s extraordinary new book about Nelson Mandela, Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Changed a Nation

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081010/REVIEW/429444369/1008

@karen and catherine... i'll believe it when i see it, but it's beginning to look like i may see it tomorrow. there's a tiny bit of me that is still holding out hope. i will be really disappointed if hillary is sos, but not upset, if that makes any sense, because I trust barack.  barack is nothing if not pragmatic, so he must see this as the best choice, if only to neutralize the clintons. it seems to me that barack has proven himself to be the alpha dog as bill has had to give up a lot of power in order to pave the way for hillary. this will be interesting to watch, and i hope that in time i am able to see the wisdom of barack's choice rather than his first big mistake.

@enzo... yikes!  i hope you are al's best friend, because if not, your "you were wrong" seems completely unnecessary. 

@joel... wow, that article was an really interesting.  my response reminded me of how i felt when i found out that flowers and tons of stuff in nature seem to have the same mathematical ratio. i wonder if third culture kids are drawn to one another without initially recognizing why? when i was in college and living in a dorm of over a thousand women, the 7 of us who sat together in the cafeteria realized one day that we had all gone to the same girl scout summer camp.

@alexa... thanks for the earlier post.  i don't have enough knowledge in the area to be able to really evaluate what you've written, but it was very interesting.

Yes - interesting article.  Another TCK here myself so interesting to read the personality analysis ...

KD

The NYT suggests that the whole team, including Susan Rice and Janet Napolitano, will be announced tomorrow.  That's assuming O'Hare and Midway stay open during our first winter storm in Chicago. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/us/politics/01clinton.html?_r=1&hp

Interesting that 3 women make up half of his national security team.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/11/29/2008-11-29_hillary_c...

Not that I believe anything leaked about her that builds her up, but, if true, way to stick a knife in your [most recently] adopted state on your way out the door.  Screw NY.

Let me count the ways.

Oh...nevermind, so many of us have recounted them time and again.  I'm just plain tired of the drama.  Someone...just make it go away.  After this announcement FINALLY tomorrow, can we please STOP talking about her for at least a couple days?

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11073424

Seriously folks, if Obama didn't want Clinton then he would have been making a huge and completely uncharactoristic mistake in his handling of this whole thing.

This is the first thing that has made me feel better about Clinton as Sec. of State:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/us/politics/01policy.html

I've always favored Gates for roughly these reasons, but maybe Clinton gives Obama political cover among liberal hawks in the way that Gates does among Republican realists.  If so, then this might not be a bad thing.  Of course, in Gates' case, his underlying are getting replaced by Obama people.  We will have to see how State gets staffed.  That is what I am most concerned about now. 

I am waiting to see how Obama will deal with this situation. In the Latino community there is the sentiment that politicians come knocking on the door when they are in need of votes. I hope Mr. President elect changes this perception otherwise that 'Sí se puede' slogan would have been an empty rhetoric.

Can we wait to see the entire cabinet before we go this argument of not enough hispanics in the Cabinet. That accusation is being tossed around now and I find it highly unfair. I have no problem with people feeling that Richardson was a better choice for SOS. Everyone is entitled to their views. However for someone to make a statement that because Richardson was not choosen for SOS is a diss to hispanics is just beyond the pale and down right ridiculous. Is it a diss to Asian Americans that an asian american was not nominate for SOS? Give the campaign a chance to name all their cabinet and White House posts and then make a judgement on how it looks as a whole.We are not ging to get everything we want nor will we agree with every decision made by the President. That's life. If we don't get one thing our way doesn't mean we should react like spoilt children and take our marbles and go home. Richardson will be in the cabinet regardless.Everybody wants what they want from Obama and wants it now. Before women were named to the cabinet their was whining no women were named now the same stupid argument is being made and drama created re hispanics.

Among the Latinos who are being rumored for Cabinet posts are Richardson for Commerce, Raul Grijalva for Interior, and Adolfo Carrion for HUD. It's just that the media aren't as interested in these posts. I would be very excited if Grijalva were named Secretary of the Interior as he would move it in a strongly progressive and environmentalist direction. For obvious reasons, the economic and national security teams are the first to be announced, but that does not mean the other posts are not important.

I would like to see the Department of Commerce encouraging companies to innovate in green technology and this is something Obama has talked a lot about so this could be a way that Richardson (assuming it is him) would actually have a key role to play.

@ikl - If that article is true, it would be an important step forward. I fear that we have a very long way to go before a progressive foreign policy is considered "mainstream". Obama had to spend a lot of time convincing people he was credible on this issue and he's going to have to do the same for everything progressive move he makes. It's a struggle that won't easily be won. It seems pretty clear to me that he has calculated that a centrist coalition is the best way to work the system rather than trying to take it down from the outside.

MONDAY  MORNING

Is The Agonist Correct? Will Barack’s Foreign Policy Trump Progress?

Microcredit Via Kiva — An Option for The Obama Movement?

http://stephencrose.wordpress.com/

Huffington Post Page

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose

I'm actually hoping (and believing the opposite) - I hope that he did not pick Clinton as a political ploy to neutralize her as an opponent - this just not ring true to me as something that Obama would do - he made a big deal out of the fact that he picked Joe Biden for VP not to help him win the election, but because he felt he would help him govern once he won (and against this, Palin was shown up to be the crassly political pick that she was). So I have to believe that Obama has seen some potential in Clinton that we are not privy to, and that he truly believes at this moment in time that she is the best person for the job. Jed makes a similar point this morning:

"So why did Obama select Clinton? Obviously, I can only guess, but my guess is that he picked her for a very straightforward reason: he believes she's the best person to carry out the job."

KD

this AP "writer".

So, why are the clintons doing this ? Are they so desperate or is it something else ?

amk

The feelings of grief and betrayal that Navarette is mongering are rooted in the conventional wisdom that Commerce is, by definition, a second- or third-class appointment. That is "wisdom" that Obama is poised to make obsolete.

Think about it. If you are an incoming president who is determined not only to to re-tool the American economy but to re-wire it, in order to address the undeniable fact that the U.S economy is increasingly dependent on the global economy -- which is to say, global politics -- and to do so by painting the economy green...

Indeed, if you take seriously the fact that the country can move forward only if our foreign, economic, energy, and climate-change policies are on the same track...

Who better to choose as your Secretary of Commerce than someone who has both economic development and foreign policy chops; someone who (1) has made his state a laboratory for the the kind of technologically and environmentally progressive industry the country needs, to move forward, who (2) has been Energy secretary, and who (3) is an experienced diplomat who can be a full partner on immigration policy and in negotiating trade deals (including renegotiating NAFTA and CAFTA) with foreign leaders.

Under this scenario, Commerce would not any kind of consolation prize for Bill Richardson. To the contrary, Richardson at Commerce would be a signal that Obama intends to make that department a very big deal.

 Pissed off and very disappointed at this choice for SoS. I gave up a whole year of income and care of my family for Barack to get elected. He has not even taken office yet but I feel ripped off by his pick of HRC. I hope this is the last time he makes a deal with the devil in his first term. Al, what say you?