When asked about Obama's foreign policy ability compared to McCain, Albright said McCain is a "fine person" and a war hero but he is "a 20th century figure who looks at issues through an old prism" whereas Obama "will take America into the 21st century."

First, she was born in Prague, and thus cannot serve as VP, no matter how much you or I or anyone else likes her.

Second, she is 71, the same age as McCain. It would blunt the argument that McCain is too old if you put someone the same age as VP on the D ticket.

"a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

which includes Washington and the 7 other presidents that weren't born on American soil.

Yes, let's have a woman who sat down during the Tutsi-Hutu massacres that cost something like a million (yes, that's a Million) lives. She still insists that "the picture in Rwanda wasn't clear," although all she had to do is watch BBC.

For those that oppose Bush's Iraq incursion, let's remember that she too intervened with troops (Bosnia) without UN approval.

She did nothing following the Kenyan embassy bombings, leading all the world's terrorists to think that the US was a target that wouldn't respond.

Until Sept 11th.

Albright, the war criminal--there, I said it--as VP would be like LBJ to Obama's JFK. The one to escalate the quagmire after the charismatic troublemaker gets taken out of the picture.

Just sayin'.

Panama.

So she's as qualified as he is.

along with europe, the US just sat when they knew FULL well that genocide was happening at an incredibly human fast scale in rwanda. bill clinton offered a lame apology, but at least he apologized. madeline still walks around like she was the greatest secretary of state of all time. she had the power to pressure the hutu goverment and refused to use it. france even helped in helping the genocidiares(sp?) escape and they have fueled the war in the neighboring COngo. But not one seems to care about that.

as far as bosnia hercegovinia. i think youre wrong on this one. they ( the us) didnt intervene in bosnia. they bombed the living shit out of serbia and they should have since it was the only way to stop the genocide. serbia was in the process of exterminating the bosnian muslims. the ohio accords were the ones that authorized the troops that came in under NATO.

you will not find ONE bosnian or one kosovar who was against that intervention. it was the only time it did any good.

the intervention in the balkans did a lot of good and prevented bosnia from being wiped out. you cant compare that to the destruction of iraq.

7, 10: agreed. Even if she were eligible, I would be very, very afraid of MA as VP.

Don't get me wrong: I don't disagree AT ALL with our policy on Bosnia. I'm simply closing the gate on people that think our foreign policy should be conducted with UN blessing and European populist approval. Those weren't the necessary rules of engagement for "Maddingly Half-Brites" foreign policy, so they shouldn't be necessarily applied to anyone else's.

Likewise with Bosnians and Kosovar, you won't find many Kurds that oppose our "protecting" them. Being unpopular isn't the same as being unjust.

The fact is, the failure of UN-approved sanctions in Iraq (a failure precipitated largely by the Euro-weenies who undermined them) was resulting in the deaths of 100's of thousands of Iraqi children ANYWAY due to disease and malnutrition. So, our intervention isn't really causing a net increase in suffering - it just happens to be more of OUR suffering now.

I didn't say she was

If I say 0 = 0 you can't say 1 = 1 until you prove it.

the reason president clinton apologized was because he acknowledged that they (we) did not do anything and we allowed millions of people to die.

she did some good things, such as pushing for the good friday agreements in northern ireland which they invested tons of time in, eventhough that the troubles only cost about 300 lives per year. rwanda cost hundreds of thousands in a week and they did absolutely nothing. thats all. i supported some things, but she was not the greatest secretary of state like some people think. was she better than rice? yep. hell after the hell on earth we have created in iraq anyone is better.

Really, you should read both foreign and domestic news journals. Nobody that is serious about international affairs regards MA as "great."

you want a realist, heartless, hawk for vp? bring back kissinger!

I believe that if any American is abroad, and they have their child (provided they have proper paperwork when the child is born) that child automatically recieves a passport and US citizenship (once all documents are subitted).

The catch, is that one parent must be a US citizen and you must submit the paperwork immediately.

Which is what the Constitution requires.

That plus breathing and the age requirement.

OK, and not being from the same state like Cheney and Bush were ...

oh never mind, it's not like we live in a country that gives a flying fuck about the Constitution anyway ... especially the US Supreme Court ...

Seriously, remembering that was the exact reason I choked while reading the original headline. This odious sentiment needs to be fucking cleansed from the modern world. CLEANSED.

Sometimes it may be "necessary" but it is never "worth it."