Peace Talks in Uganda Break Down

Well it appears that peace talks in Uganda have broken down because Joseph Kony has refused to sign the peace accords. He argues that he need more time to talk things over with tribe elders and to contemplate the charges brought against him. In response, the Ugandan government has threatened to withdraw from a year long cease fire. Complicating the matter are the ICC warrants that are still issued for Kony and two of his senior aide's arrest. After fifteen years of peace talks, Kony is still at large and the people of the Northern regions of Uganda are still at risk.

Again, this brings up the question of whether the ICC should continue if it means the war will continue. In my policy memo I wrote yes, but sometimes it is hard to argue for theoretical values when a war continues to go on. I still believe that only an arrest by the ICC can bring about long term peace, but it is hard to resolve this with short term hopes.

I couldn't resist!

Ok, so I really couldn't resist posting these videos. I warn you, these may hurt your ears AND these women are for real. Seriously, this is no spoof. Without further ado, I give you, the McCain Girls:






Don't say I didn't warn you!

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

Nancy Gibb's essay in the most recent Time Magazine discusses the fact that women are being rejected by some private colleges because the schools want to keep their male to female ratio more equal. Approximately 58% of undergraduates nationwide are female, and this number could grow to 60% within a few years. As a result, colleges have begun to target less accomplished men to make sure their gender ratios are more equal. This means women who are more qualified than men are being wait-listed or rejected from some schools.

It's amazing to me that historically women have had so many barriers to education, and yet within three decades of the women's movement, the tide has turned. I wonder if all those who scoffed at women's education in the past could have fathomed that women would be denied access to education because they're too accomplished and are outshining the men? And it's also amazing that the high enrollment of women isn't heralded as an amazing accomplishment by women, but an indicator that men aren't achieving as much as they could. I feel that if the tables were turned, and male enrollment continued to be higher than women's three decades after the women's movement, some would use this to indicate that men were just smarter than women. Funny how when it's the other way around, it means that we need to change the system so males can succeed.

You've got to be kidding me.

Ok, so apparently Joseph Kony is delaying the signing of a peace agreement with the Ugandan government because he has....wait for it...DIARRHEA! No, seriously. I mean, the man has killed and abducted tens of thousands, displaced millions and made life a living hell for all those near him, and now a little food poisoning is stopping him from signing a peace agreement? I mean, at least come up with something more creative than that..."I'm delaying it because I want immunity" or "I've decided to do some sightseeing in the Central African Republic before making my way to the border to sign the agreement." You've lived in the jungle for decades for God's sake! You're telling me that your stomach can't handle the roots and grubs or whatever the hell tyrannical on-the-run murderers eat? Come on now.

ICC Film

I think this film highlighted some of the important things we learned about the ICC. I found it particularly interesting to see the inadvertent affects of the trials on civilians or on the state of society. One of the most difficult quagmires the ICC seems to create is the idea of justice versus the idea of peace or stability. This can be in a larger sense, for example, whether or not to prosecute criminals or to end a war, or in a more localized sense, for example, in how the trials affect witnesses.

In the more localized sense, it's good to know that some attempts have been made to address the problems of witness protection, however, there still seems to be a lot that needs to be accomplished. As far as the larger picture goes, it seems important to weigh the symbolic gesture of justice versus the short term goal of ending a war. I grappled with some of these questions in my policy memo, and it seems to me that war will continue as long as those who are responsible aren't held accountable. Perhaps this particular war will end, but an atmosphere of impunity will reign if there are no ramifications for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Because of this, it seems important to go forward with ICC trials, even if it may make things more difficult in the short term.

McCain's New Ad

I love this ad's implication that if one were tortured, they would be better suited to be President. Now while McCain has been an outspoken advocate against torture, he did fail to vote against a bill condemning waterboarding, probably because he knew the President was going to veto it. Regardless, it is difficult to use torture as a credential for being President while failing to vote against its use. Also, does this mean that one of the people we have tortured could one day use their experience as a credential for being President of some Middle Eastern country if Bush's plan to democratized the region succeeds? Now wouldn't that be ironic.

Warning: Non-class related material.

Ok, so this is non-class related, but I posted a lot on class earlier so I think I'm in the clear.

Apparently the brilliant anchors over at Fox News are discussing whether or not Bill Richardson grew a beard so he could look more Hispanic to pander to this demographic on Obama's behalf. As you may recall, Richardson recently endorsed Obama, and the "news anchors" over at Fox think this is a ploy to get Hispanics' vote. As the one Mensa candidate pointed out, Richardson "also is the son of an American-born man and a Mexican-born woman, which is something he shares in some ways with Barack Obama's background." So now Obama is Mexican? I'm confused. Perhaps you can figure out what the heck these yo-yo's are talking about:



Also, Chris Matthews said that "4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons." Ummm...you mean George Bush? Is he the politician you are referring to? Cause otherwise...you're sort of completely crazy. I mean...more than normal.

Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

So I have to say that I was throughly horrified by this documentary. It's one thing to read about things like this in the news and another to hear the people involved talk about it. One of the things that was most chilling was how little remorse some of the guards actually felt. I mean, I definitely agree that they were pawns who were used as scapegoats for a situation that was created by higher level officials, but on some level it seems that they still don't understand the gravity of their actions. The one woman kept speaking about feeling "uncomfortable" and this choice of words just seemed discordant with what occurred.

Overall this film paints a pretty damning picture that shows that the administration knew that torture was occurring in this jail. While it may be technically true that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not order the exact types of techniques used by the guards (and even that is hard to believe given the exactness of the methods and the similarity to techniques used in other wars), it is obvious that if you encourage some kinds of torture, others become more accepted. In addition, having untrained guards facilitate these techniques makes the administration culpable for neglect, if not fully responsible for what occurred there. Again, this just highlights the overall lack of planning that went into the Iraq war.

This film is applicable to class because it highlights to ease with which people are influenced by their situation and normative cues. Once the other guards saw Graner being thanked for his service, they felt that this was the military condoning their actions. This is similar in the Stanford Prison experiment. No one kept the guards in check, so they continued to treat the prisoners badly. Sometimes when I was reading the webpage I was unsure if the author (who I assume was a graduate student working with the project) was overseeing the project or a guard himself. He talked about the "jail" as if it were real and clearly fell into a role himself. It is amazing that so many people, including parents, priests, lawyers, police and other students just went along with this experiment as long as they did! I mean, these people just volunteered for what they thought was a simple experiment and were subjected to psychological torture and no one seemed to find a flaw with this! It wasn't until the PhD graduate spoke up that the experiment ended (from what Dr. C said in class I was under the impression that one of the guards had spoken out, but in actuality it was an outsider visiting the experiment).

I think this experiment, and Abu Ghraib, have extreme implications for those of us who want to create policy. On the ground, it means that people can't always be considered rational actors. Policy makers must take group mentality and group dynamics into consideration when attempting to ameliorate harm. Clearly having strong oversight and a review board are important for any kind of prison system. Also, the soldiers in Abu Ghraid consistently said that they had no idea what they rules were, so it is clear that these need to be more accessible. Having said that, it doesn't seem as if the military has any incentive to do this. The insular system where troops are tried by military tribunals means that the military isn't beholden to outside rules. Even the "amnesty boxes" that were placed out in Abu Ghraib after the picture scandal erupted speaks to this atmosphere of protecting one's own (I would have liked to have known more details about what these boxes were). As the one soldier said, no one would have done anything if pictures weren't involved.

On the other hand, this mentality speaks to the in-group perspective of both militaries and governments as well. Foreign citizens are seen as "others" who are not to be trusted. Because of the location of their birth, they are seen as less than us, and their lives are automatically not as important. Differences are magnified for political gain and nationalism blinds us to the similarities we all share as humans. I'm not quite sure how policy can change as long as this mentality remains pervasive in both politics and the military.

One final note...I found this article interesting in light of the documentary and the Stanford experiment. Apparently people in California were more likely to cut down their energy consumption if they knew how much they used in reference to their neighbors. Also, the usage of smiley faces and sad faces could nudge them to use more or less electricity. While I don't agree with the article's absurd suggestion of global warming jewelry, the idea that people can be motivated to save energy if faced with a norm of conservation can be highly useful for policy makers attempting to reduce individuals carbon footprint.

Not so related...

Ok, well this is sort of related to class in that the next President will get to make decisions on the rules of war and humanitarian law (I'm stretching a bit I realize). Anyway, Frank Rich's commentary in the NYTimes about the Republican Resurrection is both terrifying and eye opening to me. I sort of appreciate the Easter humor...however discussing Republicans' rise from the dead on Easter Sunday sort of scares the crap out of me.

Tibet and state sovereignty

Here's a link to an interesting article on Tibetans attempting to deal with Han Chinese in their communities. I thought this was pertinent because it brings up the whole issue of state sovereignty.

Here we have an area that, for all intensive purposes, was its own country, but China just came on in and took it over. Despite the rest of the world's allegiance to the notion of state sovereignty, apparently Tibet is immune to this ideal. Why do you think that is the case? Do we just not care about ignoring this norm if the offending country is important to us or is it something that happened so long ago that no one seems to care anymore? It seems to me that for a long time, Tibet just took a back seat to more pressing Cold War issues, and then after the fall of Communism we cared too much about our economic welfare to fight China's control. Anyway, just my own two cents.

Daily Show interview with Ronald Kessler

So first off, I loved Kessler's complete lack of humor throughout the interview. When Stewart asked him about terrorists' emoticons he just continued on as if nothing was said, which seeing that he's the underdog on a show like this, may not be a bad tactic.

So one of the main thrusts of Kessler's argument is that there haven't been any new attacks, so Bush's methods must be working. This is an argument used time and time again by the administration and frankly it's brilliant because it's so damn difficult to contradict. Logically, it's flawed as hell, but rhetorically, it's brilliant.

Also, he speaks about the Geneva Convention as if it had no guidelines for people outside of uniform. In doing so, he completely ignores Common Article Three and the UN Convention on Torture. Then he goes on to assert that waterboarding isn't really torture because it isn't painful. It's as if he teeters between "yes it's OK to torture these people because they weren't in uniform and killed people" and "water boarding isn't torture so it doesn't matter." I'm not quite sure how one can have it both ways.

Finally, I love how he says that Iraq has been used as a propaganda tool to fuel anti-American sentiment as if in reality, Iraq is flowers and rainbows and it's only those mean Arabs who are misconstruing the realities on the ground for political gain. I mean, innocent people have been jailed and tortured, huge segments of the population have fled due to violence, hundreds of thousands have died and the country is in shambles, but using any of this is merely hyperbole that exaggerates the situation! Now American politics, that's a place where there's no propaganda...only cold, hard facts and straight talk.

I <3 Jon Stewart

It's like he's taking our class!

Lt. Col Marttala and some news

I thought one of the things that was most interesting about Lt. Col. Marttala's visit was the language that the Air Force uses to justify the rules of war they teach. For example, when the internet test explained why troops shouldn't fire on a church, it wasn't because of cultural value or non-civilian space but to save resources. Of course, this is a valuable thing for the military to care about, but I just thought it was interesting that that this issue was never something we discussed in class.

Also, it's funny how technology can both improve our lives but also create chances for error. For example, Lt. Col. Marttala said that troops just had to take that online quiz once a year (or extra classes if you handled a weapon regularly). I imagine that there are some troops who do managed to understand and absorb the rules within that one computer simulation, but I imagine there are others who don't. Also, it is amazing how much things seem to vary from unit to unit. I imagine that not all units had someone like Lt. Col. Marttala who cared so much about civilian causalities and the rules of war.

Ok, and here are some news links!

I'm sure most everyone has already seen this article, but the NYTimes did a big piece on waterboarding and how the Justice Department is actually reviewing the technique and the CIA's choice to use it. According to legal experts, the most that this review will manage to achieve is the creation of a public debate about what torture is. In light of our discussion about norms and adhering to norms, it seems important that the public gets some input/new knowledge about what exactly is going on. If this issue continues to stay in the spotlight, there is a greater chance that people will demand the CIA changes its techniques. Unfortunately, it seems that news like this is big one day and gone the next. Apparently the Geneva Convention can't keep up with reality TV and our short-attention span generation!

I also found this NYTimes article from February 14 which details one of the experiences of a detainee from Guantanamo. Apparently an Al Jazeera camera man named Sami al-Hajj was arrested in Afghanistan and held in captivity for five years. It was pretty clear that he wasn't a criminal and the US even offered to let him go free...if he agreed to spy on Al Jazeera. He refused, and as a result, is still in captivity. He has been on a hunger strike for over a year, and twice a day he is held down and force fed through a feeding tube. Apparently lubricants aren't always used, and as a result, his throat is scrapped, bloody and raw. Also, he has said that the tube is sometimes still bloody from previous uses with other detainees.

Seriously? How is this not torture. It really is unbelievable that this stuff goes on.

Bush and norms

Byers writes: "Previous administrations at least paid lip-service to the existence of normative constraints by concealing and denying their covert operations. The Bush Administration lets the mask slip, to the discredit of the nation and at the peril of the soldiers whom so many of the rules are designed to protect."

In some ways, the Bush Administration is no different from other Administration as far as its attitudes towards international affairs goes. At the end of the day, Bush does what he thinks is best for American interests, which is the same as all other Presidents before him (of course, whether or not it is in the country's best interest is actually debatable). One of the major differences, however, is his lack of regard for the desires of other states. At least in the past, presidents paid lip-service to the idea of cooperation. But while Bush doesn't seem to care about annoying other states, he does seem to care about the pretense of abiding by norms. This administration couldn't care less about what bridges it burns but it does attempt to justify the international norms it flaunts...well at least until it gets tired of doing so and just breaks them anyway!

As we've discusses so often in class, these are no mechanisms for upholding international norms. Basically, it is states that decide to play by the rules or not. And to be fair, the administration does attempt to justify its actions before it completely ignores the norm. When it invaded Iraq, it attempted to do so under the auspices of preventive and preemptive action. When it put prisoners in Guantanamo it attempted to justify their status. Basically, they've become good at reinventing words and changing the meaning of definitions. And when that doesn't work, they just find loopholes around existing norms. And when that doesn't work, they just flaunt them anyway! "We don't torture." "Water boarding isn't actually torture." "What is torture anyway?" "Let's redefine the meaning of torture..." And it goes on...

Honestly though, Clinton did the same thing with genocide. "Acts of genocide have been committed." It's as if the most important part of norm creation is nailing down the definition so tightly that there is no room to wiggle. Of course, when you do that, states refuse to agree with them. So I guess the goal of future presidents will be hiring lawyers who are clever enough to find loopholes and weak language in the norms. Man, that's depressing.

US to seek execution for 9-11 defendants

NYTimes article on the above topic. Thought it was pretty relevant given our readings!

US Soldier Convicted of Killing an Unarmed Iraqi

There was an article today in the NYTimes about a soldier who was convicted of killing an unarmed Iraqi civilian. It's odd to me that other cases that seemed more black and white have been dismissed in the past while this case was prosecuted. Maybe this conviction is a fallout from the Blackwater debacle. Although they didn't say in the article when the incident occurred.

Superdelegates=An elitist system designed by party insiders

So apparently in 1984 superdelegates were created "to restore some of the power over the nomination process to party insiders..." according to the NYTimes. Does anyone else see a problem with this? As the election gets closer and closer between Clinton and Obama, there is more and more of a chance that superdelegates will be deciding this race. Basically, these 796 people get to choose who wins in the event that neither of the candidates get enough delicates. Seriously? How is this democracy?

At least Obama has stated, "My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters."

Clinton, according to the Times, "disputed Mr. Obama’s interpretation of how superdelegates should make their decision, arguing, as her aides have in conversations with superdelegates, that they should make an independent decision based on who they thought would be the strongest candidate and president."

Now Obama hasn't come out and said he would support Clinton if she had the most delegates at the end, but his response seems to lean that way a bit more. Clinton, on the other hand, brazenly declares that even if Obama has more delgates, it is still ok for superdelegates to vote for her. Again, SERIOUSLY? Another reason why I'm happy to be supporting Obama.

Norms and Ireland and Norms and Me

Ok, so first norms and Ireland. Apparently in the past few years, people in Ireland have been refusing to use plastic bags for any of their shopping. While plastic bags aren't illegal, being spotted with one has become akin to committing social suicide, according to a recent NYTimes article. Ireland has always been pretty far ahead of the curve on this issue, requiring a 33 cents tax on all plastic bags and encouraging people to use recyclable alternatives (when I was there a few years back, you couldn't even buy plastic bags in some stores, making it very difficult for me to carry my groceries the first time I discovered this). Basically a new norm has been established that has a socially regulating effect on plastic bag usage. If only that could happen here! (As a side note, I have attempted to use only cloth bags since I moved to Pittsburgh and I've been amazed by the response from some check out people. When I say I don't need a bag, they look at me skeptically and kind of scowl. Then if my bags get filled and I have to use plastic bags, they get annoyed when I ask them not to double bag them (which is SO unnecessary). Trader Joes, of course, have been the exception to the rule! There are obviously norms at work here as well: not questioning the checkout people and using plastic bags without thought).

Ok, onto norms with me. So if you notice, this post is a little late. And I thought about just changing the date on the bottom so that it would look like I posted this on Thursday. But then I decided that I would be a better person and follow the norm of honesty. I don't have to, but the social norms of honesty that my parents embedded in me are pretty strong (that and the article I posted above is from today so it would have been kind of hard to pull off that farce effectively). Basically the reason this is late is because Tuesday I got a virus on my computer that destroyed my entire operating system. Thankfully the heroes over at the Pitt Oscar Tech desk fixed it up, but it did take several days and many hours, time that I would normally have dedicated to getting my homework in on time!

Three Kings and IL Violations

Well I honestly didn't notice any other violations than the ones that have already been mentioned so well by Poox, WanderingCrabbe and Corey (killing a soldier who was surrendering, plunder, torture, land minds, stopping humanitarian aid, mistreatment of POWs). I suppose you could include Saddam invading Kuwait in the first place into the mix as well (which is clearly a violation of state sovereignty).

One part of the movie I particularly liked was the way in which it highlighted how George Bush called on the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and then left them to die. I think this is an important part of history that is rarely mentioned. It would have been nice if they had somehow managed to work the background of the Kurdish genocide into the film, but clearly it wasn't so central to the story at hand (and they only have so much time and space in a movie! For more info on this, read about the Al-Anfal Campaign on Wikipedia). Unfortunately it seems as if so many Americans get their history from movies, so this may be the only way people learn about the war!

I thought it was powerful at the end how the American solders were willing to let the refugees die at the hands of the Iraqi guards instead of allowing them to cross the border. It is amazing how they must follow rules even if they understand that it will lead to someone else's death. I realize that the war was over and they had to remain neutral, but it seems absurd to not help the Kurdish refugees.

It also seems absurd that the US was willing to go into Kuwait and stop Saddam because he had invaded another state but was unwilling to stop him when he was killing the Kurds in the 80's. It is amazing that states aren't allowed to kill other state's citizens but they are still allowed to kill their own (although this seems to be changing a bit).

Ailing GIs deployed to war zones

I thought that this was an interesting article in light of the Watada case. Apparently soldiers who are injured are being redeployed to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I have read numerous reports of soldiers with post traumatic stress disorder being sent back to Iraq, this is the first I have heard of soldiers with physical injuries being redeployed. Again, I am curious if there are any laws that exist that allow GIs to question the treatment they receive once they have been injured (including redeployment ).

Lt. Watada's actions: legal or illegal?

Most people so far have argued that while they are sympathetic to Lt. Watada's plight, they believe that he signed up for the military, so he is obliged to follow orders. They have also argued that the Nuremberg Principles are jus in bello rules that don't apply.

As a counterargument, Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles states that: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. Also, Principle VI states: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace:(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances. Furthermore, Crime Against the Peace are defined as "the act of military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state." (Definitions from Wikipedia. Yes it can be flawed, but also oh-so-awesome). It follows then that if a soldier believes a war to be illegal, than he or she is protected under the Nuremberg Principles.

Following what this person argued, I also agree that the Iraq War is an illegal war. The Security Council did not authorize the use of force, therefore it is illegal. It could therefore be referred to as a crime against the peace, which Lt. Watada would have the right to refrain from taking part in.

While I don't know the laws one could use to defend this line of thought, I wonder if a soldier could argue against deploying to Iraq due to the horrendous conditions he or she might face if injured. I wonder if there is some legal obligations the military has to injured soldiers and what arguments one can make using this case. Clearly the many reports of awful conditions, backlogs, and cases of PTSD not being treated constitute some kind of breach of obligations.

What to do with old cellphones?

So this may be a bit of a stretch, but I think this post can be justified because of the effects limited resources have on war and conflict. In this instance it is coltan, a material needed for cellphones. Control over coltan deposits was one element that helped to perpetuate the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the 1990s and today coltan is still smuggled illegally out of this country. In order to alleviate the world's reliance on this resource, it seems important to question what happens to old cellphones.

On average, Americans get a new cellphone every 12 months. With so many people getting new phones all the time, this leaves a huge number of old phones sitting in desk drawers, or even worse, heading to landfills. Some companies have begun to recycle cell phones to the developed world, but this in itself can also cause problems. Many developing countries don't have the landfills to house the recycled phones that will eventually break down and need to be thrown out. The metals inside of them can leak into the water and soil causing environmental nightmares. There are some places that smelt phones which can no longer be repaired, mining these useless products for the precious metals they house. Unfortunately only a small number of old phones make it to this step.

This article in the NYtimes overviews this growing issue. It's long but interesting. It also makes you think twice about getting a new phone or simply leaving old ones in your desk drawer!

First Post.

Ok, so here's my first post. It's actually a re-post from another blog I have, so I suppose it's cheating, but it is timely and (sort of) relevant to this class. Basically, I decided not to vote for a particular presidential candidate because of my experiences studying humanitarian issues last semester. This conclusion was crystallized over break while I was reading Samantha Power's book "A Problem From Hell, America and the Age of Genocide." This is an amazing book that succinctly spells out the history of genocide and America's reactions to these crimes. I highly, highly recommend it. Anywhere, he's my post:

In the past year or so, I've discussed Hillary Clinton's bid for Presidency with many people, especially when I was overseas. And honestly, I never came up with a position either way. Because Pennsylvania votes so late in the primaries, I knew I would never have to truly decide on the issue, so I just decided to wait and see. I was leaning towards Clinton because I had read a lot about her, considered her an intelligent and capable candidate and relished the thought of America's first woman president, but I also liked all the other candidates in the race. But you know what? Tonight I decided that if I had to vote in the primaries, it probably would not be for Hillary Clinton.

This past semester I've spent a lot of time studying genocide. And Samantha Power's book "A Problem From Hell: American and the Age of Genocide" crystallizes Bill Clinton's inactions in the face of genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. Her book demonstrates how Clinton's cabinet and staff were so focused on preserving their own jobs and power that they let hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people die. Millions of people. Clinton's lack of leadership allowed these atrocities to continue unabated. He didn't even have to commit troops, just money and weapons and support, and he couldn't muster up the willpower to do that. While people died, bureaucrats in Washington attempted to redefine genocide so they wouldn't be obligated to intervene.

Would Hillary Clinton be any different? In the face of vast human rights abuses, and perhaps even genocide, wold she be willing to ignore potential political fall-out and work to save millions of lives? Based on her actions during this time (convincing Bill that these were age old tribal rivalries that couldn't be solved, encouraging him to focus exclusively on domestic policy and acting as his sounding board for each decision he made) I can't honestly believe that she would. Her actions, or in-actions, make her culpable. And this is not to say that other presidents have not been guilty of the same malaise when it comes to genocide; Roosevelt, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Bush all turned a blind eye to as well. But this does not excuse these actions.

While optimists might argue that Clinton has learned from her mistakes and that she would be willing to take greater action in the future, I'm not sure this is the case. To be fair, this was almost fifteen years ago when both Clintons were foreign policy neophytes. It is clear that Hillary has learned a lot since then, and her time in the Senate has surely given her large insights into minute foreign policy dilemmas that she never could have gained as first-lady. In fact, her steely demeanor and need to prove herself as a hawk may even make her more inclined to intervene. But I just haven't seen enough to prove that yet.

So despite my initial hesitancy to pick a candidate, I've at least decided which one I would probably not support in the primaries. The general election, of course, is different. And, of course, while all this postulating is lovely, I'll never have to make a decision in the primaries either way, so it really all is a moot point!