commentaries

From the article: "There is a double standard at work [in the case of Susan Rice], more nuanced and less intentional, but at the same time more insidious than what Rivlin confronted nearly four decades ago." You don't have to go back four decades for an example, Ms. Marcus. Elizabeth Warren couldn't even get nominated to be director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency which she had created. Is her instance more or less nuanced than the Susan Rice double standard? More or less intentional? More or less insidious?

Apart from what the writer of the article is saying, I am a Democrat and I don't think Ms. Rice is worth the fight that is needed to possibly confirm her, and I also do not want Sen. Kerry as either Sec. of State or Defense because of the Massachusetts Senate seat and because he he is too adverse to fight on issues. Watching the spectacle he made of himself by not defending his war record when Bush and the other Republicans attacked him(and he could have won the Presidency by really attacking back) is all I need to know about him. To my mind he should not be in either of those posts.

Absolutely ridiculous. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. The woman lied and was caught. Gender plays no part in calling it, or her, what it is.

jimjimjimjim: "Absolutely ridiculous. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. The woman lied and was caught." What is ridiculous is that Rice couldn't lie when she told exactly what she knew. It is the right that is lying about Rice. She would make an excellent Secretary of State, but the GOP wants Kerry to leave the Senate. What snakes!

Re: "[Susan Rice] would make an excellent Secretary of State, but the GOP wants Kerry to leave the Senate." Conspiracy theories are silly no matter where the theorists reside on the ideological spectrum. Serving as Secretary of State is a much more important and influential position than serving as one of a hundred US Senators. Hillary Clinton left the US Senate to become Secretary of State. How did that benefit Republicans?

Sexism and racism certainly play a role in our politics. Just ask yourself, why were doubts never raised about Mitt Romney's citizenship or indeed any president or presidential candidate, other then Barack Obama? In what way is Obama different from all other such candidates?

Yet another example of when differences and/or conflict emerge, take the path of least resistance and cry victim (racism, sexism, homophobic, etc.). The question is, "When will this viciim mentality end?" The tragedy is, as long as people take the low road, it never will.

Sexism exists...the argument that racism is a factor is false. Blacks are welcomed in their own party by the GOP but when they are Dems they are attacked. That is not racism but politics as usual. Look at the list of women who have been berated: Brooksley Born who could have saved us from the financial crisis by simply regulating derivatives. Elizabeth Warren was mentioned in an earlier comment and she was destroyed by JPMorganChase's Jamie Dimon and the financial lobby. Obama should nominate Rice and let the GOP alienate more women and minorities. On the other hand both Mary Schapiro and Elisse Walter are horrible choices to head the SEC as both came from the industry regulatory group, FINRA which paid Schapiro $9 million when she left that organization. In one of her last acts she killed a proposal to allow small companies to go public faster and to not let the wealthy be the first investors and then when the public is allowed to buy it is at an inflated price...witness Facebook! On the other hand, Obama needs to focus on the best people as his advisors and in key positions not driven by sex or race. Eric Holder should go, and not necessarily be replaced by another black or a woman...recall Janet Reno? Pick the right people and there will not be racism or sexism. Rice is fully qualified for the job as opposed to the GOP pick John Kerry which would 'coincidentally' allow Scott Brown another chance at the Senate. Get real America!

The woman lied and was caught. Gender plays no part in calling it, or her, what it is. *** Granted that at this point gender and race are lower obstacles to an appointee than before. Although Susan Rice, if appointed and confirmed, wouldn't even be the first black woman of that surname to be Secretary of State, she'd still be the first one appointed by a black president. She did not lie but only told part of the story. The rest of the story any partisan of either side could have learned by changing channels from FOX news to MSN if that's really what this is about. Heck, Rachel Maddow was out in front of that story long before McCain ever voiced his libels based upon personal dislike for Ambassador Rice. She took the talk show questions as a surrogate for Hllary Clinton. If she'd have answered differently from the replies scripted by CIA she'd certainly have disqualified herself from consideration as Secretary. (State Department and CIA are not un-related in mission.) No, what hurts Susan Rice as candidate for this post has nothing to do with competence. It's that she has so few friends on Capitol Hill. Apparently one's stature as a shmoozer in DC is more important for a prospective officeholder than really knowing what in the world is going on.

Hillary Clinton left the US Senate to become Secretary of State. How did that benefit Republicans? *** It didn't because they didn't have a plausible candidate to replace her in the subsequent special election. In Massachussetts they not only think they do have such a candidate but that his return to the Senate would be a slam dunk.