The bake-off was an attempt to appeal to stay at home moms following her
controversial response to California governor Jerry Brown’s criticism that she owed her professional success to her husband, Bill. “I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had tea,” she told a reporter in a soundbite that was reported around the world. “But what I decided to do was fulfill my profession.” Many women responded with outrage, and perhaps that’s why, shortly thereafter, Clinton participated in the traditional Family Circle first lady bake-off. And won.
Clinton’s cookies are good: my best friend’s mom used to make them for her school lunches. No doubt Hillary could have won any number of bake-offs with her recipe, but politics have paid off far more for her: in less than a year, she may be the first female president of the United States. But if that happens, she won’t be the only one breaking a gender barrier: her husband Bill will step into a role no man has ever held before. So what kind of first lady will Bill Clinton be? (Besides, of course, a manly one).
Different women leveraged the position in different ways: some argue that Lady Bird Johnson was the first to modernize the job when she campaigned on behalf of her husband Lyndon B Johnson in the mid 60s, but others wielded significant political clout before her. Eleanor Roosevelt’s work as a writer, activist, public speaker and social reformer is perhaps most famous. But other notably hard-working first ladies include Florence Harding, wife of Warren G, a passionate suffragette who edited all of her husband’s important speeches and pushed hard to influence his appointments.
But when Hillary Clinton moved into the White House in 1993, she was not granted the same flexibility. As the chair of the Task Force on National Health Care reform, she was slammed in the press for stepping beyond the reaches of her role, in spite of her clear qualifications to work on policy: the implication was that she was being unladylike. To many Americans, the revelations about her husband’s extramarital sexual proclivities confirmed their belief that Hillary was failing to fulfill the remit of the first lady: to be a pleasant and decorative hostess who represents a “traditional” and anachronistic family: a man in charge, a faithful and helpful woman by his side (even though a number of other presidents and first ladies have also had notable affairs). Indeed, Clinton blamed the affair in part on herself for failing as a wife.
KABUL, Afghanistan — The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has until mid-October to submit a plan for the initial withdrawal of American troops. His decisions may hinge in part on whether the latest surge in attacks continues through the holy month of Ramadan.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says commanders are hearing that Taliban leaders may try to regain lost ground during the Islamic holy period, which begins Monday.
Mullen says Marine Gen. John Allen, who has just taken over as top U.S. commander here, needs time to evaluate security needs and put together a detailed withdrawal plan.
Mullen's comments for the first time laid out a deadline for Allen to submit plans for withdrawing 10,000 U.S. troops by the end of the year.
The more your muscle mass, the lesser is your risk of developing diabetes, a new study led by an Indian-origin researcher has shown .
Previous studies have shown that very low muscle mass is a risk factor for insulin resistance, the major precursor of type 2 diabetes, but new research has suggested otherwise.
Previous studies have shown that very low muscle mass is a risk factor for insulin resistance, the major precursor of type 2 diabetes, but new research has suggested otherwise.
For the study, published online Thursday and in the September issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, researchers analyzed data from 13,644 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III) to determine whether there was a correlation between higher levels of muscle mass and lower levels of insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.
After controlling for age, race and other factors, the scientists found that for each 10% increase in the skeletal muscle index — the ratio of muscle mass to total body weight — there was a corresponding 11% reduction in insulin resistance and a 12% decrease in pre-diabetes.
According to the American Diabetes Association, 79 million people in the USA have pre-diabetes, which means their blood glucose levels are higher than normal but not in the diabetes range yet.
The finding that more muscle mass is beneficial is consistent with what's already known about muscle and fat — that they do affect metabolism, says Daniel Rubin, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of Endocrinology at Temple University School of Medicine.
"Extra fat has bad effects, but more muscle has good effects. These data are also consistent with data we see on exercise, that it helps decrease diabetes risk, and that a lack of exercise and weight gain increase risk," Rubin says.
Srikanthan points out that the study was not an intervention, it was observational. In other words, the authors did not look at the effect of different kinds of muscle-building activities on diabetes.
It's difficult to know when looking at a correlational study like this one whether it's just a correlation or an effect, says Duke endocrinologist Susan Spratt.
"Are there other healthy behaviors that tag along with high muscle mass that reduce the risk of diabetes? We don't know from this study that if you increase muscle mass you will decrease insulin resistance, but we can infer that might be the case," Spratt says.
It's a welcome message for patients who have trouble shedding extra pounds, Srikanthan says: "We should consider monitoring improvements in muscle mass in addition to changes in fat.
WASHINGTON — White House officials and congressional Republicans are reaching toward a potential end to their bitter debt limit showdown, raising hopes that a deal could be in place by Tuesday to avert a possible federal default.
After weeks of strident partisan conflict, the two sides were discussing an accord that would raise the government's borrowing authority in two steps by about $2.4 trillion and cut federal spending by slightly more, according to knowledgeable officials.
Congress would also have to vote on a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget, a top-flight GOP goal. Unlike a bill approved Friday by the Republican-run House, none of the debt limit increase would be tied to congressional approval of that amendment.
Details of a possible accord began emerging Saturday night after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, R-Nev., said on the Senate floor that the two sides were trying to nail down loose ends and complete an agreement.
"I'm glad to see this move toward cooperation and compromise, and hope it bears fruit," he said.
A Democratic official said that while bargainers were not on the cusp of a deal, one could gel quickly. A Republican said there was consensus on general concepts but cautioned there were no guarantees of a final handshake. Both spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal details of confidential talks.
Any pact would have to quickly pass both chambers of Congress after a rancorous period that has seen the two parties repeatedly belittle each other's efforts to end the standoff.
Even so, the deal under discussion offers wins for both sides. Republicans and their tea party supporters would get spending cuts at least as large as the amount the debt ceiling would grow and avoid any tax increases. For President Barack Obama and Democrats, there would be no renewed battle over extending the borrowing limit until after next year's elections.
Under the possible compromise, the debt limit would rise by an initial $1 trillion.
A second, $1.4 trillion increase would be tied to a specially created congressional committee that would have to suggest deficit cuts of a slightly larger amount. If that panel did not act — or if Congress rejected their recommendations — automatic spending cuts would be triggered that could affect Medicare and defense spending, two of the most politically sacrosanct programs.
Obama and Democrats have been insisting on a one-shot debt ceiling increase of around $2.4 trillion, enough to last until 2013. Bowing to GOP pressure, they eventually agreed to include an equal amount of spending cuts and dropped their earlier bid for tax increases.
Details of a possible accord began emerging Saturday night after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, R-Nev., said on the Senate floor that the two sides were trying to nail down loose ends and complete an agreement.
"I'm glad to see this move toward cooperation and compromise, and hope it bears fruit," he said.
A Democratic official said that while bargainers were not on the cusp of a deal, one could gel quickly. A Republican said there was consensus on general concepts but cautioned there were no guarantees of a final handshake. Both spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal details of confidential talks.
Any pact would have to quickly pass both chambers of Congress after a rancorous period that has seen the two parties repeatedly belittle each other's efforts to end the standoff.
Even so, the deal under discussion offers wins for both sides. Republicans and their tea party supporters would get spending cuts at least as large as the amount the debt ceiling would grow and avoid any tax increases. For President Barack Obama and Democrats, there would be no renewed battle over extending the borrowing limit until after next year's elections.
Under the possible compromise, the debt limit would rise by an initial $1 trillion.
A second, $1.4 trillion increase would be tied to a specially created congressional committee that would have to suggest deficit cuts of a slightly larger amount. If that panel did not act — or if Congress rejected their recommendations — automatic spending cuts would be triggered that could affect Medicare and defense spending, two of the most politically sacrosanct programs.
Obama and Democrats have been insisting on a one-shot debt ceiling increase of around $2.4 trillion, enough to last until 2013. Bowing to GOP pressure, they eventually agreed to include an equal amount of spending cuts and dropped their earlier bid for tax increases.
In a bill the House approved Friday — and the Senate rejected — Republicans would initially extend federal borrowing authority by $900 billion, accompanied by $917 billion in spending cuts. They would tie a second $1.6 trillion debt limit boost to spending cuts of up to $1.8 trillion and approval of the balanced budget amendment.
The government has exhausted its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit and has paid its bills since May with money freed up by accounting maneuvers.
The Treasury Department has said it will run out of available cash on Tuesday. The administration has warned that an economy-shaking default would follow that could balloon interest rates and wound the world economy.
