Secretary Patronized

The staff's reflexive political correctness is extremely embarrassing. While Madeleine Albright's appointment as secretary of state is a milestone for women, focusing almost completely on her gender and not on her achievements and ideology is especially patronizing.

The staff's concern that Albright's "every move" will be subject to gender-based critique is hysterical and unjustified. While Albright will undoubtedly have to shatter gender stereotypes, her actions as U.N. ambassador were usually interpreted fairly. Furthermore, most recent portrayals of women in unprecedented positions of power, from Margaret Thatcher to Janet Reno, have been free of patriarchal prejudice.

The staff belittles Albright by not acknowledging her distinctive foreign policy perspective. She is a bold advocate of U.S. intervention overseas and supports using our military resources to topple repressive regimes.

The staff belittles that Albright was the "clear choice," ignoring other candidates on Clinton's short list, such as Anthony Lake '61, George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke. Albright was not the clear choice--but most probably the wrong choice. She lacks a consistent and coherent vision for America's role in the post-Cold War world. She admits that her philosophy has been shaped by early life experiences of fleeing Nazis and Communists. But America's next secretary of state should be someone who considers the limitations of U.S. power and the often ambiguous nature of U.S. military interventions instead of relying on outdated hard-line cold warrior instincts.