Being pissed at the attacks on Amb Rice and not supporting her as SoS are NOT mutually exclusive.

[Stinky The Clown]

People who think about things can hold both positions.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

1. +100 n/t

[DonCoquixote]

2. True

Though I would ask, is there anyone you would support?

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Yeah

Extra points if you link to at least three of the many posts I've made where I mentioned my choice.

[spanone]

3. absolutely

[elleng]

4. Right.

[randome]

6. I agree. It's not a black and white world.

But I think Obama needs to have the SOS he wants. I give more weight to his considerations than to ours.

[MotherPetrie]

7. K&R

[Fire Walk With Me]

8. If she actually owns stock and stake in the tar sands and Keystone pipeline

she should never be allowed near a position of power. We've got Monsanto people in the supreme court and FDA. ENOUGH of this corporate trend! "Democracy" means the will of the people, not of the corporation and those using power to get rich. It's no different than Cheney getting rich through giving Halliburton contracts which caused stock options to rise in value.

[LadyBirdJohnson]

9. Thank you

These are my feelings too.

[frazzled]

10. Don't you think she should at least be nominated and that hearings be held ...

before you make a decision about her qualifications? Because, you know, some article about stocks* or some Lindsay Graham righteous outrage, or whatever, is all just noise at this point.

Personally, I always like to give a person a chance to defend themselves before we hold a lynching. That's why they have hearings. Actually, that's why they have nominations.

*If you think having some stocks in Canadian oil should disqualify her for having anything to do with anything in the world, and that this overrides any other qualifications the woman might have, then we should be applying that kind of standard elsewhere. Did I forget it, or did everyone here ask for Hillary Clinton to step down as SoS when it was revealed that her campaign manager turned around and became the chief lobbyist for TransCanada, and he was, like, all over the State department on the pipeline thing. Oh, I guess we didn't do that. Because being SoS is around 99.9% about other things and about 0.1% about this pipeline deal.

So there's some other reason that people are all, like, "I don't support Susan Rice" but I'm not agreeing with Republicans. It's something else. Help me out with what that might be.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I'll bet you get a major league contract.

You're way out in left field there, so maybe a scout will find you.

Rice is a known quantity. I said I had another choice even before McCain starting yakking, let alone this oil sands shit.

This post is for those people who are making blanket, black and white statements with more or less thoughtless "with us or against us" kinds of proclamations.

by the way, "not supporting" is not at all the same as "opposing". But that's perhaps too nuanced, huh?

[frazzled]

12. Yup, I'm that good.

See, I can be as cynical as you are.

Who's your "choice," since you are clearly smarter than the president we just elected?

[DearHeart]

13. I agree! I don't like the partisan attacks on Amb Rice, but

I don't want someone who fully supported the Iraq war as our SOS. It's not that she's not incredibly intelligent and has the experience, IMHO, I just don't believe that someone who is so supportive of wars can be an effective diplomat around the world. We need to change the way the world sees us...we've become the war mongers and we need someone who isn't a war hawk.