Derivatives are here to stay. It's been around in some form or another for as long as capital markets have existed. It's worked for generations and generations to stabilize financial markets. Therefore, I don't condemn Geithner for specifically praising derivatives as an intrinsically good thing.
The problem is not with derivatives per se, but the amount (or lack) of proper regulation by the government.
We should withhold summary judgment as to whether Geithner represents "change" or "more of the same" (a stupid binary classification, I might add), until he makes pronouncements as to what kinds of regulation he'll recommend the Obama administration should implement.
Has there been an ex-first lady to be nominated as SoS? Has there been a person who came this close to the Democratic nomination to be nominated as SoS?
Hillary stands apart from other nominees, past or present. Therefore, you can't expect that the process will be anything but extraordinary. In such unusual circumstances, negotiations aren't necessarily a bad thing. It's naive to think it's about "stomaching" anything.
What I don't get: the likes of David Ignatius and Tom Friedman predicating their analysis on (a) Hillary Clinton's super-star power, and (b) Hillary and Obama not "having each other's back", i.e., they don't trust each other. Friedman went all out to even say that Obama's mother-in-law may be a more effective Secretary of State than Hillary.
What they keep on missing is that Hillary has shown nothing but professionalism in the way she has conducted herself in her career. She is a team player. Remember the time when she began in the Senate, when everyone predicted this Bitch Queen to dominate and disrupt the collegiality of the old learned men? Even Republicans are now praising her work ethic. Remember when the primaries ended, and everyone worried that she'd be Drama Queen to undermine Obama's chances to get elected? She has campaigned all out for the Democratic ticket wherever she's sent, disappointing columnists looking for that Clinton-Obama drama to sell their respective newspapers.
So now, all of a sudden, the same old Superstar Queen will somehow fuck up Obama's foreign policy by her sheer popularity and the oft-quoted "baggage" she carries. The "baggage" known as Bill Clinton (and his global dealings) is of course a valid point; but this argument that she's somehow too big to be a team player is preposterous.
If/when Hillary winds up becoming SoS, prepare to be surprised again.
If the little girl's response was honest, did you hear what she said when her mother asked her if she would like to do it all over again? She said yes, thereby proving my point. It's understandable for a child under such circumstances (in an adult conversation setting) to just agree with anything shoved upon them.
A strong rebuke and reprimand from me? How about taking it as a point for discussion? Your hate for everything Palin is clouding your clearly superior judgment.
I don't care about the defense of Palin, really. I strongly dislike what she represents. I'm all for tearing her down with her policy positions and such, but to say that there is one way to raise kids, and that all-knowing you know how it ought to be done, is preposterous. I will not criticize the Obamas if they chose to homeschool their daughters, or to send them to private school or to public school or to have them skip a year or whatever. It's their choice. It doesn't say anything about their education policy.
But returning to the original point, did you see the YouTube video? Didn't you notice how Matt Lauer's soothing, concerned voice was feeding the negative stuff onto a 7-year-old? I've encountered many 7-year-olds, and many of them are predisposed to agreeing with adults when they're put on the spot, rather than saying no and having to explain why not.
Equivalence with the Obamas? I hope you have the time to revisit my comment, to see how your impression is wildly off the mark.
In fairness, Matt Lauer was feeding her with damning points to say YES to.
Anyone who has 7 year olds can tell you that the kids say YES to a lot of questions that adults ask-- it's just easier for a kid who's maybe nervous to be put on the spot to agree with Matt Lauer, with his concerned tone, rather than to say no, and then have to explain why not.
People, please don't read anything more from the YouTube than is actually there.