Letters to the Editor
-
Xrandadu, get over yourself.
Someone who points out the obvious fact that Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he was just some milquetoast white legislator with the same level of experience does not deserve to be called a "fucking scumbag."
More evidence that those who love Obama and his positive, hopeful, change-driven, feel-good campaign are just vicious partisans who think anyone who doesn't agree with them is a "fucking scumbag."
Come on, I might have expected that from McCain, but not from someone who clings to the coattails of His Hopeness.
-
Since They're Both For Withdrawal...
why does it matter who supported going there in the first place? Does anyone think that Hill' would be more likely to invade other countries? Obama's said time and time again in the debates that he would bomb Pakistan if he had "actionable intelligence" - sort of a tautology, that, since 'actionable' means nothing more than 'worth acting on.' Bush thought he had actionable intelligence that merited invading Iraq. Anyway, putting Obama's unremitting vagueness to the side, I don't think either is more bellicose than the other.
-
While we are talking about foreign policy
Check out this site:
http://www.fpif.org/
Read what it has to say about Obama, and then read what it has to say about Hillary.
-
@Rosenkavalier
Rosenkavalier: "Someone who points out the obvious fact that Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he was just some milquetoast white legislator with the same level of experience does not deserve to be called a "fucking scumbag.""
Sorry, but anybody making such statements is scum. Sorry.
Rosenkavalier: "More evidence that those who love Obama and his positive, hopeful, change-driven, feel-good campaign are just vicious partisans"
Riiiiight. Because it's so vicious to angrily call people out for offensive garbage. I am actually sorry for using the F-word there....that was a bit much, I admit.
-
commander in chief test?
Um, I guess he does pass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Qualification.2C_disqualification_and_common_practice
and XH - blaming Clinton for Rwanda makes about as much sense as blaming Bush for Darfur - slim to none.
-
Let's be serious.
The New York Times does a pretty fair job of analyzing HRC's experience claims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It is worth noting, as we wax poetic about Hillary's awesome experience, that this is a claim that only she and her most ardent supporters can claim as the truth. Not one shred of real evidence exists that Hillary Clinton influenced any of the major decisions her husband undertook beyond her assertion that she did influence him.
If you're in love with Hillary, that's great. But that's a lot of faith in a candidate. It's almost Obamanian.
-
Chelsea, being black
@ Xrandadu - notwithstanding your comment about Chelsea for president, it says something positive about both Clintons as parents that two fairly flawed people produced a daughter sufficiently well-adjusted that she probably won't run for president.
@ Rosenkavalier - while I think that Xrandadu over-reacted to Dolores, of course you resent his being rude on that point. You made a slightly finer-grained version of the same point earlier in the thread. It's amazing how quickly the theoretical devotion of the Democratic Party to meritocracy mixed with social justice evaporated in this campaign. Both candidates are talented, neither is where they are solely on their own merits.
-
why does it make us scum?
The simple fact of the matter is that there are dozens of equally-qualified state legislators and activists who would have never even gotten a shot at a Senate seat if they didn't have the suave good looks, multiracial appeal, and assuringly deep voice of Obama. You can't deny that there are loads of white liberals who think an Obama presidency would be the best thing since sliced bread because such a thing would prove how racially enlightened we white liberals are.
I'm not saying that Obama is an upstart whelp with no legitimate claim to the presidency. He is certainly a better candidate than McCain, in any case. But he also owes at least some of his astronomical success to his race, his looks, his ability to make a pretty speech. Ten years ago, all of the current presidential candidates were political "somebodies" on the national scene... except for Obama. There are a lot of factors that account for his unprecedented sudden popularity and you'd have to be naive to think race wasn't one of them.
-
@optimacy
optimacy: "and XH - blaming Clinton for Rwanda makes about as much sense as blaming Bush for Darfur - slim to none."
Don't you think Bill Clinton could have done more? I do. I think Clinton and other Western nations sat on their hands.
-
Clinton's claim of foreign policy experience higly questionable
One of Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience is that she helped to bring peace in Northern Ireland. Did anyone catch the story in the U.K.'s Guardian? Nobel winner Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey (someone who did have a significant role in ushering in peace) said:
"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml
-
XH - Honestly, I don't know, but I don't think so
Yes, they could have given UNAMIR more money and troops, but I doubt that 100,000 troups could have stopped or slowed it
-
"Does anyone think that Hill' would be more likely to invade other countries?"
Her vote on Kyl/Lieberman.
-
GEB123
I live in Chicago, too. You're making stuff up.
-
@Rosenkavalier
Rosenkavalier: "The simple fact of the matter is that there are dozens of equally-qualified state legislators and activists who would have never even gotten a shot at a Senate seat if they didn't have the suave good looks, multiracial appeal, and assuringly deep voice of Obama."
First of all, I apologize to everybody (especially delores flower) here for the "f-ing scumbag" remark. I misinterpreted what delores flower was saying, and responded too quickly, though I do still wonder why she brought it up -- it was unrelated to the rest of the comments.
Second of all, it is ironic that you're forging ahead with this argument, since I think delores flower was actually against it and making the point that people should neither say "Obama is here only because he's black" nor "Clinton is here only because she's a woman."
At least you're toning down the race aspect and making it more about Obama's charisma. I agree, Obama does use charisma to his advantage, but that is something that will continue to serve him as a president. I also think his charisma is supported by actual substance and intelligence and judgment. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't back him at all.
Rosenkavalier: "You can't deny that there are loads of white liberals who think an Obama presidency would be the best thing since sliced bread because such a thing would prove how racially enlightened we white liberals are."
I won't deny it for the simple reason that I can't prove such people do not exist. I will say that I have never heard anybody openly say this, and I think it is absurd for Obama opponents to make this claim when they have no direct evidence for it. Though I am extremely reluctant to make charges of racism, this seems to me to be a sort of back-door racism -- saying "people wouldn't like him if he weren't black," or "people only like him because it makes them feel good to vote for a black guy."
Rosenkavalier: "I'm not saying that Obama is an upstart whelp with no legitimate claim to the presidency. He is certainly a better candidate than McCain, in any case."
I am glad you will concede that much. I have no trouble saying the same about Hillary Clinton.
Rosenkavalier: "But he also owes at least some of his astronomical success to his race, his looks, his ability to make a pretty speech."
If you are going to keep referring to his race, then would you be willing to make a similar claim about Hillary's success being related to her gender? If not, why not?
Rosenkavalier: "Ten years ago, all of the current presidential candidates were political "somebodies" on the national scene... except for Obama. There are a lot of factors that account for his unprecedented sudden popularity and you'd have to be naive to think race wasn't one of them."
It's one thing to say that his race plays in to SOME of his success. It's another to say that his race is the PRIMARY reason for his success, or to make an absolute statement that Obama wouldn't have any success without it.
Gary Kamiya wrote a piece on Salon that suggested Obama's race was a plus because it brings people together, he has experience from different angles, etc. Personally I would prefer that his race be ignored as much as possible because I consider it healthier for everybody to focus on the candidates' positions and abilities.