i saw that too, but i was thinking of something else -- the supposed crime of being both successful and stylish -- coming from a website that regularly knocks women who are out of step with whatever is hip. really, women can do no right with these people.

I just think it's symbolic of this administration's tendency to fiddle while Rome burns.

1,100 people a month are dying in Iraq. Taliban warlords are slowly retaking Afghanistan. Thousands are dead---and more are dying every hour---in New Orleans.

And what are our leaders doing? Goin' bike ridin' and shoe shoppin'.

How can you not be disgusted? How can you just shrug your shoulders and say" aw...that's not her job..."

Can't you ban Don Myers? He's so aggressively idiotic it's hard to stand it anymore.

One would think that while international (Canadian) aid such as medical supplies, water and food sits on a god damn runway WITHOUT clearance to land and people continue to die without necessities in Louisiana largely because the federal government is unable to coordinate any cohesive effort, Madam Secretary would have better things to do with her time.

Good for her. I went out drinking last night and I didn't feel guilty. I mean, c'mon - has one person outside of the Gulf area actually changed their social plans as a result of this hurricane? I doubt it.

She's just helping the economy.

She could scare looters away with her "angry face."

Don--

Are you joking?

The president can't take a bike ride, and Condi can't go shopping, as long as we have troops in Iraq? Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Don, no one cares what you think it 'symbolic'. You think voting for Bush is symbolic of wanting blacks to have separate water fountains and women to die of back-alley abortions. Your symbolic-meter has always been a bit off.

Yaron, while Don's opinions are always the most extreme, I don't want to ban people for things they say. I'm pretty sure I haven't banned a single commenter yet.

Toby, again, it's not her job, even if other countries are involved. Her job centers on foreign policy. Her involvement would just be another cook stirring the soup. It's ok for her to buy shoes.

Maybe her lack of focus has lead to the governments "mixed messages" on foreign aid. The State Department has said that Ms. Rice's position is that we will accept all foreign aid.

This was less than hours after

''I'm not expecting much from foreign nations because we haven't asked for it," Bush told ABC's ''Good Morning America." ''I do suspect a lot of sympathy, and perhaps some will send cash dollars. But this country is going to rise up and take care of it. You know, we love help, but we're going to take care of our own business, as well."

Not her role to make decisions and implement them on whether to accept foreign aid???? While planes are sitting on foreign tarmacs??? Geez, my understanding of the cabinet must be all wrong. Please, educate me. After all, she did say we'd accept aid. I guess her accountability stops there.

"It's not my role." God, I need to remember that one for EVERYTHING I handle that I don't feel accountable for.

I can't understand the wacky liberal suggestion that a politician has to be constantly hunched over his or her desk--in the Washington D.C.--in order to be working. I do most of my writing at Starbucks; it's not a vacation just because I'm eating a Rainbow Cookie.

a rainbow cookie? Even ur cookie is gay? Jeesh.. should have seen that one coming.

"I'm not expecting much from foreign nations because we haven't asked for it. I do suspect a lot of sympathy, and perhaps some will send cash dollars. But this country is going to rise up and take care of it. You know, we love help, but we're going to take care of our own business, as well."

How does that translate into we won't accept foreign aid? I read that as we don't expect other countries to help much (historically, they haven't) so we're planning on taking care of this ourselves, although we would gladly welcome any aid.

And have we forgotten so soon how the Sec of Commerce heroically rolled up his sleeves and pitched in with fueling fighter jets when Don Rumsfield found himself very busy with the invasion of Afghanistan?

Not my job? That's loser talk.

Well considering she made very publicized statements on it, she must feel it is somewhat her job.

But this notion that every executive in the federal government ought to be bailing water out of houses in New Orleans is simply ridiculous; nobody suggested that Bill Clinton ought to help rebuild the Federal Building in Oklahoma, or that he was remiss in his duties for vacationing to Martha's Vineyard; suddenly, any time there is trouble of any kind, liberals expect Bush to personally rebuild and repair all damage as if he were a contractor instead of President of the United States.

Oh Jeeezus.... I state that Condoleeza Rice should be more in the loop on prioritizing foreign aid (after all, she is making statements about it) and you equate it to bucketing water? That's idiocy.

I don't expect the President to bail water, but I do expect him to LEAD. That doesn't seem like too much to ask, but Karol and Dorian will fall all over themselves to make excuses for Bush, no matter what.

Apparently, "the buck stops here" is only true for Democratic presidents.

Actually, just to clarify, Dorian posted that comment before he saw yours. Both comments were held for my approval and I approved them at the same time.

For the record, Dorian---not that I think the record means a tinker's damn to you---Clinton DID help rebuild the OKC Federal Building by getting a $39 million relief package through Congress in a couple of days.

He also tried to to strenghen antiterrorism efforts after the bombing, but was prevented from doing so by obstructionist (and hypocritical) Republicans:

Following the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the new president sent stringent antiterrorism legislation to Congress as part of his first crime bill. The passage of that legislation many months later was the last time he would enjoy real cooperation against terrorism from congressional conservatives. When he sought to expand those protections in 1995 after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, he was frustrated by a coalition of civil libertarians and antigovernment conservatives, who argued that his "overreaction" posed a threat to constitutional rights. Among that bill's most controversial provisions were new powers to turn away suspect immigrants, swifter deportation procedures, and a new deportation court that could view secret evidence. (During his 2000 campaign, George W. Bush won support from American Muslims by denouncing that provision.) [source]

Don--

I assume that your praise for Bill Clinton's counter-terrorism efforts was part of a stand-up comedy routine that you're workshopping for Caroline's Comedy Club, so I won't respond to that. But I will remind you that domestic terrorism is a federal offense (in other words, the federal government is immediately responsible for it,) while a hurricane is not. The immediate responsibility for disaster relief belongs to the individual states; that's the reason that states have to appeal to the federal government for additional assistance.

Dorian:

Is that your excuse for why FEMA is a no-show and Bush is a non-leader? Pretty lame, dude. Not as lame as your obsessive hatred of Clinton/obsessive love of Dubya, but still....mighty, mighty lame.

Don--

Isn't it true that there is--in actuality--nothing that Bush could do to impress you in this situation? I believe that were he to actually go bail water out of houses in New Orleans the Left would deride it as a "photo op." The reality is that your hatred--and the hatred of the Left--toward George W. Bush is so blinding that you blame him for, literally, everything, from casualties in Iraq, to gas prices, to flooding that resulted from Hurricane Katrina.

Memo to the Left: a man in Washnigton DC can't "cause" casualties in Iraq, can't "cause" gas prices to go up on fuel that we don't even produce, and can't "cause" a hurricane-induced flood.