I actually think that one of the parts you highlighted, "This is not culture. This is not custom. This is criminal..." is really problematic. Surely, the first step in figuring out a healthy and effective path to improving the lives of women within a culture that systematically oppresses them is to understand the complexity of that culture and its customs--its history, the paths and tributaries of its evolution, along with its indigenous forms of resistance to its own structures of oppression? Clinton, in addition to being very familiar with problems of sexism and the oppression of women, both through direct personal experience as well as the experiences of all the people she has encountered through a rich professional and political life, is also part of a culture that has its own long history of imperialism. In my mind, one of the key tools of imperialism is to denigrate the "other" culture as "barbarous," or "backwards," or "criminal," thereby justifying intervention from ones own, "superior" culture (and military, and economic advisors, etc.).

Afghanistan has a long history of incursions into its various cultures and territories by forces of imperialism--British, Russian, Soviet, American. Each of these incursions has played a role in the deformation and destruction of aspects of Afghan culture. So is this culture, as it manifests itself now criminal? Do we put it in jail or put its head in a noose? Is it sick? Do we stash it in the hospital or the asylum?

I think Americans are engineers at heart. We want to go in and fix things, especially when its in the interest of our corporate clients. But even if we try and think the best of ourselves (which, generally, as Americans, we have no trouble doing), our obsession with fixing things inevitably makes us focus on what is broken, and such a focus necessarily neglects all the things that work.

Of course, as Secretary of State, Clinton's job is to speak with governments, which, within their countries are usually the biggest institutions of oppression. At best, she can prop open the door a little for indigenous forms of resistance, only I'm not sure she has the ability to lead with the necessary nuance--to change the culture of her own, traditionally very imperialist slice of government so that it is itself infested with a different, transformative way of thinking.

Clinton's manner of speaking makes me suspect that we can depend on her to charge around the world, more imperialist than feminist. For the liberation of women, or for any oppressed group for that matter, we will continue to have to rely, as we have always done, on the women, gays, subsistence farmers, the homeless, the displaced--all those folks working and agitating for their own freedoms and rights, as well as those involved in bringing their stories before the eyes of the world.

But what the hell. After the last eight years, I guess having something to smile about is... well, it's something.