NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the common claims of the Clinton supporters is Obama's "lack of foreign policy cedentials".

First off, the president's primary job is foreign policy. One can see that from the constitutional perogatives given. As such, the president should be the person most qualified to understand the world at large.

Both Hillary and Obama have roughly the same amout of FP experience in elected office. Obama is on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Clinton is on the Armed Services committee. Both have traveled extensively overseas. Both have passed important FP related legislation.

Hillary was the First Lady, but so what? First Lady/Laddie is not now, has never been, and hopefully will never be a foreign policy qualification.

The one particular point that gets lost or played down, where Obama has a leg up is his four years spent living abroad.

I can tell you from my own personal experience of my nearly 17 years of expatriate life, that living abroad, as opposed to simply visiting, gives one a unique international perspective that most Americans do not have - this includes Hillary Clinton.

My experience is backed up in sociological research on so called "Third Culture Kids", or TKCs, that is people who've spent more than two years living abroad as children.

Based on the results of a long-term study of students in an international school in Japan, Willis (1994) suggests that TCKs exhibit characteristics of a transcultural / transnational identity that is needed for the world to transcend untranationalism and ethnocentrism. He concludes that these students have the skills needs to create community from diversity. Gerner et al. (1992) also noted positive characteristics of TCKs in two large international schools. In their study, TCKs reported having a high level of interest in travel and learning languages, and they rated themselves as being culturally accepting and having developed a high level of acceptance of diversity. In addition, Iwama (1990) found that in comparison of Japanese TCKs with students who have lived only in Japan, the TCKs were more self-confident, had more flexible minds, were more active and curious, and had a higher bilingual ability. He noted that these students can "swim in two cultural oceans." Because of their varied experiences, the students can see life in terms greater than one cultural boundary and can explain and express themselves in more than one culture.
http://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c22473.htm

Here's some more on TCKs:
http://www.iss.edu/pages/kids.html
http://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c21995.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Culture_Kids


As a TCK, there is nobody better running than Obama to repair the serious diplomatic damage of the last eight years, and the less serious but still real damage of the previous eight.

Discuss. :)

just on obama I love his voice lol

I'd prefer a President who understood that foreigners do not have our best interests at heart and their sole interest was in representing the interests of the majority here at anyone else's expense.

You might as well ask the opposing coach who they want to send up to bat if you want to elect politicians on their popularity abroad and understanding of foreigners.

I've never understood the belief that you should live your life and not care about what other people think. Yet everyone should elect politicians based on what make other people happy. Piss on those weak people.

You think the other nations should elect their leaders based on who we want in power? I'd love to see the reactions to those claims. Yet everyone acts like we should elect a leader who other people like.

everyone acts like we should elect a leader who other people like
I'd prefer a President who understood that foreigners do not have our best interests at heart
Ahh, those damned foreigners, eh?

The premise of the OP is that "the president's primary job is foreign policy". I take it from your comments that you disagree. Fair enough.
You think the other nations should elect their leaders based on who we want in power?
No no, there's no need. I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy with whoever some other sovereign nation wanted to have as their leader. I'm also sure that it would never cross your mind to, oh I dunno, attempt to force a change if you didn't like them.
Yet everyone acts like we should elect a leader who other people like.
Tell me, honestly, what purpose would it serve to elect a leader who was actually disliked by the rest of the world's leaders? Or is that an irrelevance to you, as per your "piss on the weak" comment?


OP: For what it's worth I agree that foreign policy is a huge chunk of a national leader's role, but I'm not sure that I agree that it's their primary role.

I'm not saying that leaders should be elected because they are disliked abroad, not at all. I'm saying that electing a leader based on their popularity abroad is so pathetic that anyone that believes that is beneath contempt. I don't expect Brazil to elect a leader based on who I want in power, but who serves their interests. And truthfully it's usually the people who represent you the best that are disliked the most by everyone else in the Western world.

Basically the rest of the world wants an American leader who will never use the military at any time except for a direct assault, will bow to the authority of the corrupt international organizations like the UN and will basically surrender and appease the terrorists by abandoning our national interests in the Middle East. That's a coward's solution and it doesn't work. This has nothing to do with the Iraq War, but people who think that we should sell out the Israelis and our allies in the Middle East and force our companies to leave so that the Islamic terrorists might stop attacking us are absolute scum.

The president's knowledge is irrelevant, that's why he has advisers. How much foreign policy experience does a governor have? None.

Tell me, honestly, what purpose would it serve to elect a leader who was actually disliked by the rest of the world's leaders? Or is that an irrelevance to you, as per your "piss on the weak" comment?
Yeah seriously not like the US has a bad image already... I bet he voted to re-elect Bush too.

of course being first lady counts as having foreign policy experience.

she went all over the world with her husband and on her own meeting the leaders of all sorts of countries. she met every major world leader either abroad or when they visited the US.

that counts.

is it a slam dunk? no. but it sure as hell counts.

I'm not saying that leaders should be elected because they are disliked abroad, not at all. I'm saying that electing a leader based on their popularity abroad is so pathetic that anyone that believes that is beneath contempt. I don't expect Brazil to elect a leader based on who I want in power, but who serves their interests. And truthfully it's usually the people who represent you the best that are disliked the most by everyone else in the Western world.

Basically the rest of the world wants an American leader who will never use the military at any time except for a direct assault, will bow to the authority of the corrupt international organizations like the UN and will basically surrender and appease the terrorists by abandoning our national interests in the Middle East. That's a coward's solution and it doesn't work. This has nothing to do with the Iraq War, but people who think that we should sell out the Israelis and our allies in the Middle East and force our companies to leave so that the Islamic terrorists might stop attacking us are absolute scum.

What you're talking about is Congress. No one honestly expects a congress voted in based on what foreigners think about it.

However, with a president, you get someone who only really has the ability to make suggestions and veto powers with regards to domestic issues (see, congress), but he's pretty much the highest ranked diplomat and (in the US) general. That makes it extremely important to consider if the president is a good leader or not. Hillary, for example, might have experience meeting other heads of state and the like, but her warmongering attitude should worry people, because as president she'd have the power to declare war.

And that's why it is important to consider what foreigners think of your president. Heads of state typically do serve more as diplomats/generals, unless they are despots.

I'd prefer a President who understood that foreigners do not have our best interests at heart and their sole interest was in representing the interests of the majority here at anyone else's expense.

And this relates to the OP how?

You might as well ask the opposing coach who they want to send up to bat if you want to elect politicians on their popularity abroad and understanding of foreigners.

The OP has nothing to do with Obama's popularity (or unpoularity) anywhere. It does, however, have very much to do with understanding foreigners. I am trying to point out that he does have unique experience that qualifies him to have a better understanding of foreign relations.

I've never understood the belief that you should live your life and not care about what other people think. Yet everyone should elect politicians based on what make other people happy. Piss on those weak people.

You think the other nations should elect their leaders based on who we want in power? I'd love to see the reactions to those claims. Yet everyone acts like we should elect a leader who other people like.

Strawman much?

I'm not saying that leaders should be elected because they are disliked abroad, not at all. I'm saying that electing a leader based on their popularity abroad is so pathetic that anyone that believes that is beneath contempt. I don't expect Brazil to elect a leader based on who I want in power, but who serves their interests. And truthfully it's usually the people who represent you the best that are disliked the most by everyone else in the Western world.

Basically the rest of the world wants an American leader who will never use the military at any time except for a direct assault, will bow to the authority of the corrupt international organizations like the UN and will basically surrender and appease the terrorists by abandoning our national interests in the Middle East. That's a coward's solution and it doesn't work. This has nothing to do with the Iraq War, but people who think that we should sell out the Israelis and our allies in the Middle East and force our companies to leave so that the Islamic terrorists might stop attacking us are absolute scum.

More strawman.

of course being first lady counts as having foreign policy experience.

she went all over the world with her husband and on her own meeting the leaders of all sorts of countries. she met every major world leader either abroad or when they visited the US.

that counts.

is it a slam dunk? no. but it sure as hell counts.
Ceremonial meetings as first lady hold little weight as far as I'm concerned. As far as travelling all over the world, Paris Hilton does that. Does that qualify to conduct nuanced diplomacy?

Basically the rest of the world wants an American leader who will never use the military at any time except for a direct assault, will bow to the authority of the corrupt international organizations like the UN and will basically surrender and appease the terrorists by abandoning our national interests in the Middle East. That's a coward's solution and it doesn't work. This has nothing to do with the Iraq War, but people who think that we should sell out the Israelis and our allies in the Middle East and force our companies to leave so that the Islamic terrorists might stop attacking us are absolute scum.


.....No we dont want a complete plank.

I particularly like the bit about americas national interest in the middle east, isnt that what israel is for(dont get me started on israel).You like israel because they do must of the crap you dont want to do though I must admit at least they are a democracy.We want ye to use wisdom and logic in your military deployment, we mostly support afghanistan because there was a decent reason and the UN is much more respectable then the US who still defy common sense by almost ignoring global warming

He might have some foreign policy qualifications, but he is not a good public servant, nor leader. I emailed him about 10 different times over the last 2 years, and I have NEVER recieved anything back from his office. Not even an automated thank you for your concern letter, and I am from HIS state. He can go bite a cow's rear for all I care.

He might have some foreign policy qualifications, but he is not a good public servant, nor leader. I emailed him about 10 different times over the last 2 years, and I have NEVER recieved anything back from his office. Not even an automated thank you for your concern letter, and I am from HIS state. He can go bite a cow's rear for all I care.

That's hardly uncommon, especially with email.

Ceremonial meetings as first lady hold little weight as far as I'm concerned.

And yet, if a Senator or Congressman had attended such meetings, they would be touting them as part of their foreign policy credentials. The point is she was attending high level functions with heads of state in an official capacity. That kind of experience is relevant.

My experience is backed up in sociological research on so called "Third Culture Kids", or TKCs, that is people who've spent more than two years living abroad as children.


http://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c22473.htm

Here's some more on TCKs:
http://www.iss.edu/pages/kids.html
http://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c21995.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Culture_Kids


As a TCK, there is nobody better running than Obama to repair the serious diplomatic damage of the last eight years, and the less serious but still real damage of the previous eight.

Discuss. :)

I've read the book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Third-Culture-Kids-Experience-Growing/dp/1857882954/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199907429&sr=8-1), it is quite interesting, even if it wasn't quite as relevant to me as my gf thought. Though my dad is a TCK so I lent it him.

But a small nitpick. Isn't a TCK a child who is neither here nor there. That is, doesn't live in their "home" culture nor the culture of the place where they live. Typical examples being diplomats' children, soldiers' children or business peoples' children, where the compound/base/enclave has a distinct culture to both the native and adopted countries.

Obama, to my knowledge doesn't have this experience. Since as far as I can tell he actually moved into a country rather then a expat enclave. I could be wrong though. I don't know too much about Obama's personal life, especially when he was young

As I say though, a minor nitpick. I still think his time abroad is valuable and an interesting thing to have given his position.

And yet, if a Senator or Congressman had attended such meetings, they would be touting them as part of their foreign policy credentials. The point is she was attending high level functions with heads of state in an official capacity. That kind of experience is relevant.

I'd say that is more, important to know someone won't act the bore or make any egregious faux pas in polite company, than essential experience required for foreign policy. Maybe that is just me.

Hillary has connections though if all else fails she can just pull a Tonya Harding with Mr Clinton's friends

I'd prefer a President who understood that foreigners do not have our best interests at heart and their sole interest was in representing the interests of the majority here at anyone else's expense.

actually we are quite pleasant once you get to know us :)

As a TCK, there is nobody better running than Obama to repair the serious diplomatic damage of the last eight years, and the less serious but still real damage of the previous eight.
Obama said he would put troops in Pakistan to look for terrorists.

That's not a very good idea, considering the very reason that we were attacked in 2001 was because we had troops where many people did not like them. (Saudi Arabia, and Al-Qaeda, respectively.)

just on obama I love his voice lol
I like him because he's very clean, and articulate.

Cheney, Rummie and co had decades of "foreign policy experience" and a fat lot of good that did to the US foreign policy.

of course being first lady counts as having foreign policy experience.

she went all over the world with her husband and on her own meeting the leaders of all sorts of countries. she met every major world leader either abroad or when they visited the US.

that counts.

is it a slam dunk? no. but it sure as hell counts.

Typically their depth of involvement is very very superficial...parties and such. Yeah they would know people but very less about what type of people they really are. Don't we have enough instances of really bad people when it comes to public policies being very good hosts in private?

Wasn't Hilary singing songs about how she knew Benazir and how great she was blah blah.....

I'd prefer a President who understood that foreigners do not have our best interests at heart and their sole interest was in representing the interests of the majority here at anyone else's expense.

You might as well ask the opposing coach who they want to send up to bat if you want to elect politicians on their popularity abroad and understanding of foreigners.

I've never understood the belief that you should live your life and not care about what other people think. Yet everyone should elect politicians based on what make other people happy. Piss on those weak people.

You think the other nations should elect their leaders based on who we want in power? I'd love to see the reactions to those claims. Yet everyone acts like we should elect a leader who other people like.
I'm not saying that leaders should be elected because they are disliked abroad, not at all. I'm saying that electing a leader based on their popularity abroad is so pathetic that anyone that believes that is beneath contempt. I don't expect Brazil to elect a leader based on who I want in power, but who serves their interests. And truthfully it's usually the people who represent you the best that are disliked the most by everyone else in the Western world.

Basically the rest of the world wants an American leader who will never use the military at any time except for a direct assault, will bow to the authority of the corrupt international organizations like the UN and will basically surrender and appease the terrorists by abandoning our national interests in the Middle East. That's a coward's solution and it doesn't work. This has nothing to do with the Iraq War, but people who think that we should sell out the Israelis and our allies in the Middle East and force our companies to leave so that the Islamic terrorists might stop attacking us are absolute scum.

QFT!



..the UN is much more respectable then the US...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaa... Really, I mean is this for real??

That's hardly uncommon, especially with email.

Not so, every other congressperson I have contacted has PROMPTLY responded, such as our other us senator, Dick Durbin, who went out of his way to help me with my question. And he has more experience and all that hoot than Obama mama could ever dream of. Obama is just riding his superstar wave.

I'd prefer a President who understood that foreigners do not have our best interests at heart and their sole interest was in representing the interests of the majority here at anyone else's expense.
Bit of a sweeping statement, let's be honest. I might not particularly like your leadership, but the average Yank is an alright sort. Wouldn't really want to wish them any harm and all that.
You might as well ask the opposing coach who they want to send up to bat if you want to elect politicians on their popularity abroad and understanding of foreigners.
The US can't exist as a self-contained state any more. So it needs to be a bit more polite. There we go.
I've never understood the belief that you should live your life and not care about what other people think. Yet everyone should elect politicians based on what make other people happy. Piss on those weak people.
Eh?
You think the other nations should elect their leaders based on who we want in power?
Hey, does it really matter if they do?

If they cheese you off to much, you usually just replace them with some Pro-US puppet.
I'd love to see the reactions to those claims.
"Aye, you've made such superb choices in the past, eh?"
Yet everyone acts like we should elect a leader who other people like.
Maybe we know what you want more than you do. You don't want the US to just become the most painful joke in the whole world, now, do you?

He also announced his intention to work with "rouge" states instead of isolating them, which is probably the best foreign policy to offer.

Obama has refused to rule out attacking Iran. He must not be elected.

QFT!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaa... Really, I mean is this for real??
Contrary to beliefs you may hold, adding 'HA's doesn't add to your argument.

Though, I agree with you, the UN isn't more respectable than the US. They both suck equally at the present moment.

He also announced his intention to work with "rouge" states instead of isolating them, which is probably the best foreign policy to offer.
Isolating them would surely be the way to civil war, wouldn't it? I mean the "red" states only voted for what they saw good...

The president's knowledge is irrelevant, that's why he has advisers. How much foreign policy experience does a governor have? None.

In every situation I have ever been the more knowledge I had on my own, at least to evaluate the advice I was getting and know which direction to go when asking for advice was absolutely invaluable.

If I'm from Illinois, I'm wondering wtf is going on with my Senator. The guy has only been in office since 2005 and he's certainly spent more time campaigning for President and fund raising than anything for my state.

If I'm from Illinois, I'm wondering wtf is going on with my Senator. The guy has only been in office since 2005 and he's certainly spent more time campaigning for President and fund raising than anything for my state.

If you were from Illinois, you'd also know that we'd never hear about anything he did anyway thanks to the governor's Doomsday Countdown crap. You'd also know that he only announced his bid in February of '07 and did little to no campaigning before that.

And he's been in office since '04. 1997 if you count the Illinois Senate.

I love Obama.

:sniper: Hillary

If I'm from Illinois, I'm wondering wtf is going on with my Senator. The guy has only been in office since 2005 and he's certainly spent more time campaigning for President and fund raising than anything for my state.

He's actually been serving Illinois since 1997, which is more than some people running for office.

On yeah, the media are covering up Obama's good work for his state. And yeah, didn't hear nothing about Obama running for President and touring the country before last February, almost a year ago by the way in a three year term so far.

Senators are elected in November and sworn in the following January, he's been in office since 2005 Mr. Corrections and no I don't count the Illinois Senate, not that it would matter because evidently no wants to talk about anything he did there, least of all him.

On yeah, the media are covering up Obama's good work for his state.

No, the media are covering a pissing match between Springfield and Chicago that could have a major impact on a large portion of Chicago's population.


And yeah, didn't hear nothing about Obama running for President and touring the country before last February, almost a year ago by the way in a three year term so far.

Actually, we heard mostly about his decision of whether or not he was going to run for president.


Senators are elected in November and sworn in the following January, he's been in office since 2005 Mr. Corrections

Fair enough.


and no I don't doubt the Illinois Senate, not that it would matter because evidently no wants to talk about anything he did there.

A summary of this (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html) from here (http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/obamas-voting-record-in-the-illinois-state-senate/)

BUDGET & TAXES
# Voted to raise the minimum wage in Illinois from $5.15 an hour to $6.50 an hour over two years. (2003)
# Helped pass a 5 percent earned-income tax credit for low-income working families in 2000; made the credit permanent in 2003.
# Voted to end $300 million worth of tax breaks for businesses. (2004)
# Voted against making permanent the repeal of the state’s 5 percent sales tax on gasoline. (2000)

HEALTH CARE
# Voted for having Illinois endorse embryonic stem cell research. (2004)
# Successfully sponsored the Health Care Justice Act, a study of ways to implement a universal health care system statewide. (2004)
# Voted against restrictions on public funding of abortion. (2000)
# Successfully co-sponsored a prescription drug discount buying club program for seniors and the disabled. (2003)

CRIME & GUN CONTROL
# Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)
# Voted to let retired police and military police carry concealed weapons. (2004)
# Successfully sponsored requirement that law enforcement videotape interrogations of suspects in some serious crimes. (2003)
# Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (2003)
# Helped pass an overhaul of the state’s troubled death penalty system. (2003)
# Unsuccessfully sponsored measure to expunge some criminal records and create an employment grant program for ex-criminals. (2002)
# Unsuccessfully sponsored limit of one handgun purchase per month. (2000)
# Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)

MISCELLANEOUS
# Unsuccessfully co-sponsored ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure became law after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. (2003)
# Successfully sponsored move to shield Illinois workers from federal rules that threatened overtime pay for some employees.
# Successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform called the Gift Ban Act. (1998)
# Voted against giving tax credits to parents who send their children to private school. (1999)

...


As if that will change his mind?

That's a small number of public records.

"Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)"

Yeah, I'm an American who believes I should have the right to own a weapon even if the government says I can't. I defend my family from a criminal and I should be charged for murder.

"Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (2003)"

As if anyone needed more confirmation that he's a race hustling phony.

"Helped pass an overhaul of the state’s troubled death penalty system. (2003)"

They should be shot in the head in the basement of court on the day after their appeal fails, not more tax payer money going to support the scum of humanity.

# Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)"

Yep. Gots to defend his people yo. Obama be down for dat shit.

That should be the Republican headlines on Obama right there.

That's a small number of public records.

"Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with
violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)"

"Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (2003)"

Helped pass an overhaul of the state’s troubled death penalty system. (2003)

# Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)"

That should be the Republican headlines on Obama right there.

psst...beat you to it by about 8 minutes.

But then, if you were from Illinois...

(full article here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml))

What exactly is supposed to show Obama being moderate that I keep hearing about?

I'm a socially liberal person, I don't try and say that I'm a moderate when I'm not for any kind of conservative social policies, much less have the media parrot the claims without evidence.

Only just recently i supported Huckabee, but I have changed my mind and I'm now voting Obama. ( I don't change my mind very often either)

Obama's foreign policy was one of the several things that cuaght my attention. I really think he's a better choice in this area then Hilary is.

That's a small number of public records.

"Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)"

Yeah, I'm an American who believes I should have the right to own a weapon even if the government says I can't. I defend my family from a criminal and I should be charged for murder.

"Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (2003)"

As if anyone needed more confirmation that he's a race hustling phony.

"Helped pass an overhaul of the state’s troubled death penalty system. (2003)"

They should be shot in the head in the basement of court on the day after their appeal fails, not more tax payer money going to support the scum of humanity.

# Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)"

Yep. Gots to defend his people yo. Obama be down for dat shit.

That should be the Republican headlines on Obama right there.

If you violate a local weapons ban (a.k.a. a law) then you should be prosecuted, case closed.

What's wrong with studying who gets tickets? Are you supporting racial profiling?

The death penalty is wrong. It will definitely lead to the execution of innocents and is currently more costly than life without parole. Obama is certainly right in opposing it.

I'm against the death penalty period.

is that the Democrats are bringing voters to the polls for primary votes in record numbers. People want to distance themselves from anything to do with Bush and his rabid republican government.

The Dems are in the position of having to choose between a slate of really good candidates -- like having to make a selection from the dessert cart.

The Reps are wringing their hands over their slate of crappy candidates -- like choosing which flavor of cough syrup to buy.

The death penalty itself and the way that's it's practiced are very different things. I agree that it's not very effective now because it takes so long to execute someone. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it means they are not implementing it right.

And yes, I am for racial profiling because racial crime is extremely unbalanced. Something that no one wants to talk about, just make excuses and brush it aside real quick before the stats.

The death penalty itself and the way that's it's practiced are very different things. I agree that it's not very effective now because it takes so long to execute someone. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it means they are not implementing it right.

And yes, I am for racial profiling because racial crime is extremely unbalanced. Something that no one wants to talk about, just make excuses and brush it aside real quick before the stats.


This character is a member of the American conservative movement -- you know, the ones who hate everyone who isn't them. Most of us try to ignore them, although it's hard with all the shouting and brandishing of weapons.

How about looking at all the other bills he sponsored in 93rd Assembly?

Illinois 93rd General Assembly (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?GA=93&MemberID=747)

It is, after all, a simple matter of public records.

Conservative in what sense?

I'm 100% for gay rights, I'm an atheist, I support prostitution, stem cell research, abortion, universal health care, legalization of all drugs, universal aid for higher education, euthanasia, heavy environmental regulations and etc...

I am a realist, not a conservative.

I would really love to have lived in a time where a person wasn't a labeled a conservative for believing that child molesters, cold blooded murderers and rapists deserve to be shot. Or that terrorists deserve no mercy.

I believe that Obama would be great for *this country.* He has a talent for getting disparate entities talking to each other. He's a great mediator and that's what this country needs, desperately.

But in terms of foreign policy, the candidate that sets the bar — very highly, I might add — is Bill Richardson, no mistake. He's been a U.N. Ambassador, he negotiated the release of the American "guests" (aka, hostages) from Iraq, even talking with Saddam Hussein towards that end. He negotiated the release of soldiers' remains from the Korean War, from North Korea. Shortly before the New Hampshire primary, he communicated with Pakistan government officials and has their support.

Did you read that?
Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein. Mssrs. Axis of Evil, the "bad guys!"

Logic states that your job doesn't lie with the easy parts, it begins with the hard parts. The sticky situations are where your skills are tested. Anyone can shake hands with a friend, but if you can get your enemy to smile, nod and agree with you...then you get to say "I'm the best."

Barack Obama's good. Bill Richardson is better.

The death penalty itself and the way that's it's practiced are very different things. I agree that it's not very effective now because it takes so long to execute someone. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it means they are not implementing it right.

Why even bother though? What difference would it make to everyone else if you execute the guy rather then imprisoning him?
Bearing in mind that the death penalty is actually more expensive to carry out because of the large amount of appeals.


And yes, I am for racial profiling because racial crime is extremely unbalanced. Something that no one wants to talk about, just make excuses and brush it aside real quick before the stats.
Your logic is going in circles. You're missing a bit of the circle, but it's circular nonetheless.

"He has a talent for getting disparate entities talking to each other. He's a great mediator and that's what this country needs, desperately."

That is not basic knowledge. Please cite some examples.

Conservative in what sense?

I'm 100% for gay rights,

Be sure you note SB101 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=101&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=735)

stem cell research

HB3589 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=3589&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=6165)

heavy environmental regulations

SB3147 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=3147&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=11039)
SR5065 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SR&DocNum=565&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=13334)

universal funding for higher education

SB0529 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=529&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=3203)

"Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (2003)"

As if anyone needed more confirmation that he's a race hustling phony.
Yes.

"Helped pass an overhaul of the state’s troubled death penalty system. (2003)"

They should be shot in the head in the basement of court on the day after their appeal fails, not more tax payer money going to support the scum of humanity.
And who should be shot in the head if it turns out they were wrongfully convicted? The cops? The jury?

# Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)"

Yep. Gots to defend his people yo. Obama be down for dat shit.
How racist of you. Well, I guess that explains your problem with Obama.

I would really love to have lived in a time where a person wasn't a labeled a conservative for believing that child molesters, cold blooded murderers and rapists deserve to be shot. Or that terrorists deserve no mercy.

I can think of some much more apt terms. Ignorant seems the least likely to be considered flaming.

The death penalty itself and the way that's it's practiced are very different things. I agree that it's not very effective now because it takes so long to execute someone. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it means they are not implementing it right.

And yes, I am for racial profiling because racial crime is extremely unbalanced. Something that no one wants to talk about, just make excuses and brush it aside real quick before the stats.

In theory the death penalty would be fine, but there will also always be the possibility of executing the innocent. And as you recognize, the possibility of innocence isn't the only problem here in America.

Obama is the one trying to get stats.

As I've said before, that argument can be used against any kind of justice system at all. There will always be mistakes made.

And yeah, Telesha, Obama certainly is probably closer to my views on all social issues than Republicans, but that doesn't cancel the massive differences.

Like all the bullshit support for "sensitivity training" and the other race baiting bills and beliefs.

And yeah, Telesha, Obama certainly is probably closer to my views on all social issues than Republicans, but that doesn't cancel the massive differences.


Stem cell research and environment regulation are social issues now?

Like all the bullshit support for "sensitivity training" and the other race baiting bills and beliefs.

A handful of bills out of how many?

As I've said before, that argument can be used against any kind of justice system at all. There will always be mistakes made.
And fatal mistakes are the worst kind. At least you can release someone who was wrongfully imprisoned. What can you do to someone who's dead? And under your 'system' it would be even more likely that innocents would be wrongfully executed.
race baiting bills and beliefs.

What now?

When haven't they been?

Republican candidates oppose stem cell research in deference to the religious base and the environmental concerns based on business donors.

It's sad, but it's the way it is in the U.S. political parties.

And one doesn't need to look at Obama's voting history to realize that he represents everything about racial identity politics. The fact that someone could become President is more horrific than a LCD candidate like Bush. Obama's book is a horror novel.

As I've said before, that argument can be used against any kind of justice system at all. There will always be mistakes made.

But one cannot, in any way, make up for the mistake, if a person's life has been taken. If one is wrongly sent to prison for life, one can still be taken out. It is true that someone wrongly convicted of anything will lose a lot, but the death penalty is the only case where there cannot be some form of compensation.

When haven't they been?

Since they are, you know, scientific and environmental issues.


And one doesn't need to look at Obama's voting history

Because you clearly haven't


to realize that he represents everything about racial identity politics. The fact that someone could become President is more horrific than a LCD candidate like Bush. Obama's book is a horror novel.

Is there an echo?

That's setting laws based on the exception. To me it's like saying that we should never go to war because civilians will be killed. Always give in. It's sad, but you can't base those decisions on bad things that could happen.

The president's knowledge is irrelevant, that's why he has advisers. How much foreign policy experience does a governor have? None.

Want to point something out either you are overlooking or just don't know. Many governers go on foreign trade trips to drum up business for their home states. That is in the realm of foreign relations and trade policy.

"He has a talent for getting disparate entities talking to each other. He's a great mediator and that's what this country needs, desperately."

That is not basic knowledge. Please cite some examples.

He is a pretty great mediator. Speaking personally, I know quite a few conservatives, who have stated that they'd be able to live with Obama, contently. I can't say the same thing about Hillary.

But when though? Where exactly does this reputation come from? Especially on a national level?

Was there some issue in Illinois where a Republican said that Obama was friendly or something? I just don't see it. He's been even more divisive than Hillary in my opinion. On social issues, he's a hard liner, there's no way in hell that he's going to be some kind of moderate voice of reason.

But when though? Where exactly does this reputation come from? Especially on a national level?

Bipartisan efforts for starters

Examples:

Coburn-Obama Transparency Act with Tom Coburn R-OK
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act with John McCain R-AZ
3 Amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act with Arlen Specter R-PA

and from the 110th Congress:

Chuck Hagel R-NE for legislation concerning nuclear terrorism risks
Kit Bond R-MO - Amendments to the Defense Authorization Act

But when though? Where exactly does this reputation come from? Especially on a national level?
Who cares? Let's just shoot criminals, and, if possible, foreigners.

Is there an echo?
Quite possibly.

Come on Telesha, you know as well as I do that every single member of the Congress is involved in some bipartisan efforts. That would make Ted Kennedy the King of them.

I'm just wondering where exactly this whole reputation of Obama as this great mediator and diplomat came from? Is it like his reputation for being a moderate, completely manufactured?

But when though? Where exactly does this reputation come from? Especially on a national level?

Was there some issue in Illinois where a Republican said that Obama was friendly or something? I just don't see it. He's been even more divisive than Hillary in my opinion. On social issues, he's a hard liner, there's no way in hell that he's going to be some kind of moderate voice of reason.

Obama has a sort of reputation, justly earned or not, of treating different peoples with respect. I'll leave my respective faith or lack there of unnamed, but I was impressed with his speech about religion.

And what's so bad about hard-lined social issues? The AA is the only potentially divisive policy of his. I'm a repubitarian and I'm more put off by Hillary's left wing economics than by Obama's right wing social policies. Actually, I'm sort of inspired by it. But that's just a personal opinion.

I'm just wondering where exactly this whole reputation of Obama as this great mediator and diplomat came from? Is it like his reputation for being a moderate, completely manufactured?

More:

Obama has encouraged Democrats to reach out to evangelicals and other religious people, saying, "if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at—to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own—we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse."[121] In December 2006, he joined Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) at the "Global Summit on AIDS and the Church" organized by church leaders Kay and Rick Warren.[122] Together with Warren and Brownback, Obama took an HIV test, as he had done in Kenya less than four months earlier.[123] He encouraged "others in public life to do the same" to show "there is no shame in going for an HIV test."[124] Before the conference, 18 pro-life groups published an open letter stating, in reference to Obama's support for legal abortion: "In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren's decision to ignore Senator Obama's clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway."[125] Addressing over 8,000 United Church of Christ members in June 2007, Obama challenged "so-called leaders of the Christian Right" for being "all too eager to exploit what divides us."[126]

And you might find this (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar) illuminating.

That's setting laws based on the exception. To me it's like saying that we should never go to war because civilians will be killed. Always give in. It's sad, but you can't base those decisions on bad things that could happen.

Yes, you absolutely can. In fact, to ignore the bad things that could happen is astonishingly stupid. How can you make any kind of plan without considering how it could go wrong?

I'd say that is more, important to know someone won't act the bore or make any egregious faux pas in polite company, than essential experience required for foreign policy. Maybe that is just me.

And I'd argue that in foreign relations, the relational aspect is very important. The fact that she has met and interacted with foreign leaders and their spouses, developed relationships, learned some of the decorum and custom that goes along with it, are all valuable assets. Social faux pas can actually be very costly in foreign relations, particularly when they are seen as a snub to national or cultural identity.

Want to point something out either you are overlooking or just don't know. Many governers go on foreign trade trips to drum up business for their home states. That is in the realm of foreign relations and trade policy.

And their role there is probably no more significant than a First Lady. But no-one is giving Hillary much credit for her experience.

And I'd argue that in foreign relations, the relational aspect is very important. The fact that she has met and interacted with foreign leaders and their spouses, developed relationships, learned some of the decorum and custom that goes along with it, are all valuable assets. Social faux pas can actually be very costly in foreign relations, particularly when they are seen as a snub to national or cultural identity.

And Obama would have a harder time with other cultures than Hillary?

Need I remind you, he is half black, half white. He is a Christian, but has a Muslim father. He lives in a big city, his grandparents live in (what is essentially) a village. I think Obama would have the easiest time with customs of others.

And Obama would have a harder time with other cultures than Hillary?

Need I remind you, he is half black, half white. He is a Christian, but has a Muslim father. He lives in a big city, his grandparents live in (what is essentially) a village. I think Obama would have the easiest time with customs of others.

I'm not saying he would. The fact that I was recognizing Hillary's credentials did not mean I was tearing down Obama's. In fact, I think he has great credentials. I fully recognize the fact that when someone comes from different cultural backgrounds, that can be a big asset in terms of bringing different perspectives to the table.

I also agree with the poster that said that his time spent living abroad is a huge asset none of the other candidates have.

He might have some foreign policy qualifications, but he is not a good public servant, nor leader. I emailed him about 10 different times over the last 2 years, and I have NEVER recieved anything back from his office. Not even an automated thank you for your concern letter, and I am from HIS state. He can go bite a cow's rear for all I care.

That's weird. I've e-mailed both him and Dick Durbin several times and gotten rather prompt and interesting responses (both via e-mail and the mail system).

(and, yes, I'm a Chicagoan).

I'd prefer a President who understood that foreigners do not have our best interests at heart and their sole interest was in representing the interests of the majority here at anyone else's expense.

You might as well ask the opposing coach who they want to send up to bat if you want to elect politicians on their popularity abroad and understanding of foreigners.

I've never understood the belief that you should live your life and not care about what other people think. Yet everyone should elect politicians based on what make other people happy. Piss on those weak people.

You think the other nations should elect their leaders based on who we want in power? I'd love to see the reactions to those claims. Yet everyone acts like we should elect a leader who other people like.

Yeah, well since our leaders need to work in the real world where the "foreigners" opinions actually matter, I think it's a pretty good idea. You don't elect politicians to make other people happy. You elect politicians who can find ways to work with other people to make you happy. Get it yet? Despite Ron Paul's pleas to return to isolationism it's not going to happen. We need leaders who have real world skills dealing with people from diverse backgrounds. We need people who are willing to throw the old playbook out and start again fresh.

And Prince, if you hate what foreigners think so much it says more about you then it does them. There are two pieces of advice you are failing to understand when it comes to international affairs. 1. To thy own self be true. 2. "Know your enemy." People who fail to understand their adversaries will never be able to defeat them or rule them. This is the failure of people who are xenophobic and weak of mind. They believe that all that they believe is right and just with the world is such. They refuse to understand that others may feel that exact same way. I'll take intellect in Obama over ignorance thank you very much.

If you were from Illinois, you'd also know that we'd never hear about anything he did anyway thanks to the governor's Doomsday Countdown crap. You'd also know that he only announced his bid in February of '07 and did little to no campaigning before that.

And he's been in office since '04. 1997 if you count the Illinois Senate.

Don't confuse him with statements of fact that can be verified in the public record.

That's a small number of public records.

"Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)"

Yeah, I'm an American who believes I should have the right to own a weapon even if the government says I can't. I defend my family from a criminal and I should be charged for murder.

"Successfully sponsored law enforcement study of the race of people pulled over for traffic tickets. (2003)"

As if anyone needed more confirmation that he's a race hustling phony.

"Helped pass an overhaul of the state’s troubled death penalty system. (2003)"

They should be shot in the head in the basement of court on the day after their appeal fails, not more tax payer money going to support the scum of humanity.

# Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)"

Yep. Gots to defend his people yo. Obama be down for dat shit.

That should be the Republican headlines on Obama right there.

Wow, I just realized you're really not worth responding to. Try debating politely and while using relevant facts. Mr. Obama has a public record from 1997 and you were clearly too ignorant to read it before someone posted it for you. Perhaps having knowledge of an issue should guide you in your future posts. But that wasn't your intention was it? Your intention was to come in here, stir up shit, and badmouth anything Obama has ever done. Do whatever you want but I just called you a spade.

Along with his record, his intellect, knowledge of federal and state election laws, civil rights law, and time spend abroad make him a very formidable candidate. He's got something the others don't and that pissed people like you off. It has also nothing to do with him being black. He's not out for "his people." unlike Rev. Al and Jessie he's not running on a race platform. He's running on an "American" platform. He's not going to be the President. Your complicity in the "all gang members are black and therefor Obama supports them" once again tells more about you than him. Gang members come in every color so don't get it twisted. Obama's stance here requires a depth of knowledge surrounding urban, ethnic ghettos that promote violence over education. Let's see if we took you out of your lilly white world, painted you black and dropped you in Spanish Harlem to see how you turn out. You wouldn't be spouting the idiotic shit you are right now and that's for sure.

As of now I've leveled off on you well enough so I'll just take a bow. My patience with ignorance is getting thin these days.

Be sure you note SB101 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=101&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=735)



HB3589 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=3589&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=6165)



SB3147 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=3147&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=11039)
SR5065 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SR&DocNum=565&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=13334)



SB0529 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=529&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=3203)

How's that for not "Talking in generalities?" He just showed Obama's relation to what you say you believe. There's that public records thing again. Learn to research kid.

How's that for not "Talking in generalities?" He just showed Obama's relation to what you say you believe. There's that public records thing again. Learn to research kid.

Prince Eric doesn't need to research, he can feel what's true!

Obama has refused to rule out attacking Iran. He must not be elected.

He's also stated that if elected, he would very, very soon, meet with certain leaders of those nations, like The Presidents of Iran (sorry, cant remember his name) and Syria, and others.

Guess how many times ouir president has actually talked with those folks in the last 8 years?

Guess how many times ouir president has actually talked with those folks in the last 8 years?


Does one get a prize if answered correctly? ;)

Prince Eric doesn't need to research, he can feel what's true!

It's not a lie if you believe it to be true.

Well, I'm glad to see this come alive finally. :)

And yet, if a Senator or Congressman had attended such meetings, they would be touting them as part of their foreign policy credentials. The point is she was attending high level functions with heads of state in an official capacity. That kind of experience is relevant.

First lady is not an official position.

I've read the book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Third-Culture-Kids-Experience-Growing/dp/1857882954/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199907429&sr=8-1), it is quite interesting, even if it wasn't quite as relevant to me as my gf thought. Though my dad is a TCK so I lent it him.

But a small nitpick. Isn't a TCK a child who is neither here nor there. That is, doesn't live in their "home" culture nor the culture of the place where they live. Typical examples being diplomats' children, soldiers' children or business peoples' children, where the compound/base/enclave has a distinct culture to both the native and adopted countries.

Obama, to my knowledge doesn't have this experience. Since as far as I can tell he actually moved into a country rather then a expat enclave. I could be wrong though. I don't know too much about Obama's personal life, especially when he was young

As I say though, a minor nitpick. I still think his time abroad is valuable and an interesting thing to have given his position.

TCKs, as I understand it, are any kids who've lived overseas, not exclusively those who live in the exclusive compounds.

So who are these Third-Cultured Kids? They are not a new phenomenon. As one looks back over history, there is a realisation that certain groups of people have led highly mobile lives, a key factor in describing TCK's. They often relocate to new home and/or countries. They are exposed to new cultures and to other people in the community who also move constantly.

Dr. Ruth Useem, who received her Ph.D. in Sociology, Anthropology, Social Psychology, and Psychology from the University of Michigan, was the first person to coin the phrase Third Culture Kid. Dr. Useem's study of Americans living in India led her to define TCK's as "Children whose parents work abroad to live". (Useem, 1960). More recently, she redefined TCK's as "Children who accompany their parent's into another culture". (Useem, 1970). David C. Pollock and his co-author Ruth Van Reken, describe a TCK as

"A person who has spent a significant part of his or her developmental years outside the parents' culture. The TCK builds relationships to all of the cultures, while not having full ownership of any. Although elements from each culture are assimilated into the TCK's life experience the sense of belonging is in relationship to others of a similar background."
(Pollock & Van Reken, 1999)
http://wanjennifer.tripod.com/

I know a fairly large number of kids in Japan (both Japanese returnees and non-Japanese) who attend regular schools (or in the case of returnees, attended regular schools abroad), who I'd class as TCKs.

I'd say that is more, important to know someone won't act the bore or make any egregious faux pas in polite company, than essential experience required for foreign policy. Maybe that is just me.



actually we are quite pleasant once you get to know us :)

Nah. Yer all just a buncha gaijin scum. ;)

Obama said he would put troops in Pakistan to look for terrorists.

Not quite. What he said was "(i)f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will". [1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm)] That is significantly different from "I will put troops in Pakistan to look for terrorists."

That's not a very good idea, considering the very reason that we were attacked in 2001 was because we had troops where many people did not like them. (Saudi Arabia, and Al-Qaeda, respectively.)

1) The people who planned those attacks are there.
2) The attacks were not simply for having troops where they weren't wanted, but for having troops "occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places".

I like him because he's very clean, and articulate.

That's nice to know Senator Biden. ;)

Cheney, Rummie and co had decades of "foreign policy experience" and a fat lot of good that did to the US foreign policy.

The best rejoineder to that is to refer back to the main thrust of my OP. How many years did team Neocan spen living overseas.

Typically their depth of involvement is very very superficial...parties and such. Yeah they would know people but very less about what type of people they really are. Don't we have enough instances of really bad people when it comes to public policies being very good hosts in private?

Indeed and indeed.

QFT!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaa... Really, I mean is this for real??

Quoting strawmen. Nice work. Are you for real or Eric sock puppet?

He also announced his intention to work with "rouge" states instead of isolating them, which is probably the best foreign policy to offer.

Indeed yes.

The Reps are wringing their hands over their slate of crappy candidates -- like choosing which flavor of cough syrup to buy.

It's 1988 redeux - except the Dems had Gary Hart and the seven dwarves. Twenty years later, the GOP has just the seven dwarves.

I believe that Obama would be great for *this country.* He has a talent for getting disparate entities talking to each other. He's a great mediator and that's what this country needs, desperately.

Indeed.

But in terms of foreign policy, the candidate that sets the bar — very highly, I might add — is Bill Richardson, no mistake. He's been a U.N. Ambassador, he negotiated the release of the American "guests" (aka, hostages) from Iraq, even talking with Saddam Hussein towards that end. He negotiated the release of soldiers' remains from the Korean War, from North Korea. Shortly before the New Hampshire primary, he communicated with Pakistan government officials and has their support.

Did you read that?
Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein. Mssrs. Axis of Evil, the "bad guys!"

Logic states that your job doesn't lie with the easy parts, it begins with the hard parts. The sticky situations are where your skills are tested. Anyone can shake hands with a friend, but if you can get your enemy to smile, nod and agree with you...then you get to say "I'm the best."

Barack Obama's good. Bill Richardson is better.

Richardson is also out (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080110/D8U2MD7O2.html). (I never supported him anyway. Look into the scandal of NMHU and Manny Aragon, Richardson's handpicked racist.) I could swallow Richardson as Sec. State or National Security Advisor, position for which he's indeed qualified.

He is a pretty great mediator. Speaking personally, I know quite a few conservatives, who have stated that they'd be able to live with Obama, contently. I can't say the same thing about Hillary.

Yep. There's even been talk of an Obama/Hagel ticket. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Obama%2FHagel+&btnG=Google+Search)

And Obama would have a harder time with other cultures than Hillary?

Need I remind you, he is half black, half white. He is a Christian, but has a Muslim father. He lives in a big city, his grandparents live in (what is essentially) a village. I think Obama would have the easiest time with customs of others.

Indeed so. Not only that, but (and this is much more important) his experience gives him a better understanding of how non-Americans think and feel.

I also agree with the poster that said that his time spent living abroad is a huge asset none of the other candidates have.

:)

Yeah, well since our leaders need to work in the real world where the "foreigners" opinions actually matter, I think it's a pretty good idea. You don't elect politicians to make other people happy. You elect politicians who can find ways to work with other people to make you happy. Get it yet? Despite Ron Paul's pleas to return to isolationism it's not going to happen. We need leaders who have real world skills dealing with people from diverse backgrounds. We need people who are willing to throw the old playbook out and start again fresh.

And Prince, if you hate what foreigners think so much it says more about you then it does them. There are two pieces of advice you are failing to understand when it comes to international affairs. 1. To thy own self be true. 2. "Know your enemy." People who fail to understand their adversaries will never be able to defeat them or rule them. This is the failure of people who are xenophobic and weak of mind. They believe that all that they believe is right and just with the world is such. They refuse to understand that others may feel that exact same way. I'll take intellect in Obama over ignorance thank you very much.

Well said.

Wow, I just realized you're really not worth responding to.

Notice how often I replied to him. ;)

He's also stated that if elected, he would very, very soon, meet with certain leaders of those nations, like The Presidents of Iran (sorry, cant remember his name) and Syria, and others.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamene'i are the Iranian leaders.

Guess how many times ouir president has actually talked with those folks in the last 8 years?

Winston Churchill said it best: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Does one get a prize if answered correctly? ;)

Wealth beyond your dreams... :D

Conservative in what sense?

I'm 100% for gay rights, I'm an atheist, I support prostitution, stem cell research, abortion, universal health care, legalization of all drugs, universal aid for higher education, euthanasia, heavy environmental regulations and etc...

I am a realist, not a conservative.

I would really love to have lived in a time where a person wasn't a labeled a conservative for believing that child molesters, cold blooded murderers and rapists deserve to be shot. Or that terrorists deserve no mercy.

Heh. And if we started doing that, it would only be the child molesters and cold-blooded murderers who were shot? You sure about that? Because no one has ever been freed from death row after, oh, let's say, 20 or so years?

And how do you explain the likelihood that you'll get the death penalty if you're black and kill or rape a white person being so much greater than that of a white person who does the same to a black person.

Oh, right, it's just a fact that black people are bigger criminals. Just look at the numbers. Good enough. We've learned exactly what a "liberal" is in your world.

That's setting laws based on the exception. To me it's like saying that we should never go to war because civilians will be killed. Always give in. It's sad, but you can't base those decisions on bad things that could happen.

We do set laws based on the exception. The country was founded on the presumption of innocent and the idea that protecting the innocent at the expense of letting a few criminals walk was more important than getting a few criminals at the expense of putting a few criminals in jail. However, we cannot have no justice system so we simply do our best to protect the innocent. We can however not have a death penalty. It's not required and has never been demonstrated to have a practical value. The only thing the death penalty does is make it impossible to release the innocent. It doesn't make killers and rapists more "off the street". It has no deterrent effect. It has no effect at all.

Now, do you have an argument that relies on facts. Because thus far you've just been spouting off, often times in clearly racist ways, and even bragged about how you didn't find your ignorance of the topic as relevant to your opinion.

Much like you find the facts are not relevant to your opinion, we don't find your opinion relevant to the facts.

First lady is not an official position.


OK, but I think you get my point. She attends official functions and ceremonies. She is unable to hold any outside employment. She has a staff. It's a pretty formal informal position.

TCKs, as I understand it, are any kids who've lived overseas, not exclusively those who live in the exclusive compounds.

Damn straight. Missionary kids, diplomatic kids, and generally speaking anybody who grew up in two or more cultures during their formative years. Such as yours truly.

Slightly more on topic, I reckon it does make excellent general training for foreign policy and the like. Simply because you are more tolerant of most other people's cultures, you are generally more understanding, and you've been brought up with a much more international outlook.

How's that for not "Talking in generalities?" He just showed Obama's relation to what you say you believe. There's that public records thing again. Learn to research kid.

It's also worth noting that one of the bills he referred to, the one providing for a study on the ethnicity of the drivers involved in traffic stops, is also from that year.

Just 15 minutes, folks, that's all it takes.

OK, but I think you get my point. She attends official functions and ceremonies. She is unable to hold any outside employment. She has a staff. It's a pretty formal informal position.

While I think her meeting world leaders and forming a relationship with them is a good thing, I believe its impact is minimal. It would be a little odd for her to hold outside employment. Could you see Laura down at the IHOP trying to "make ends meet?" I would trust her more to lead our country than I would Laura or Babs. Being first lady is not enough to give you creds. Being a first lady who is just as involved in politics as your husband is does make a difference. That being said I am not a Hillary supporter. My vote goes to McCain or Obama as I think Rudy is a lost cause at this point. As a native New Yorker I loved Rudy on 9-10-01, but the likelihood of him becoming President is slim to none.

Hillary was the First Lady, but so what? First Lady/Laddie is not now, has never been, and hopefully will never be a foreign policy qualification.I totally disagree. Having been the first lady and having experience not only in meeting other countries leaders, but also in dealing with them personally, is a major qualification. Just diving into international relations can be a disaster, seeing as there is plenty of broken glass.

The one particular point that gets lost or played down, where Obama has a leg up is his four years spent living abroad.

I can tell you from my own personal experience of my nearly 17 years of expatriate life, that living abroad, as opposed to simply visiting, gives one a unique international perspective that most Americans do not have - this includes Hillary Clinton.True dat. Hillary has the bonus of handing out Diplomas at my Berlin Highschool though. Having lived abroad helps, but there's plenty of people that it didn't benefit in the least.

My experience is backed up in sociological research on so called "Third Culture Kids", or TKCs, that is people who've spent more than two years living abroad as children.We're TCKs. :p
Seriously though. Him having grown up in places other than the US is probably why he considers something as unimportant as a patriotic lapel pin as unimportant.

And one doesn't need to look at Obama's voting history to realize that he represents everything about racial identity politics. The fact that someone could become President is more horrific than a LCD candidate like Bush. Obama's book is a horror novel.

Because mentioning race and the disparities in opportunity, etc. between varying ethnicities is automatically "racial identity politics"?

It might be interesting to note that Obama has been criticized for not being "black enough" and for not always voting with the black caucus in the Senate. It would seem that it isn't all about racial identity politics, eh?

Meanwhile, have you read his book?

Because mentioning race and the disparities in opportunity, etc. between varying ethnicities is automatically "racial identity politics"?

It might be interesting to note that Obama has been criticized for not being "black enough" and for not always voting with the black caucus in the Senate. It would seem that it isn't all about racial identity politics, eh?

Meanwhile, have you read his book?

Shh, don't bother him with things he'd know if "he lived in Illinois" ;)

But when though? Where exactly does this reputation come from? Especially on a national level?

He has a consistent reputation for working with Republicans to find compromise on measures - both in the Illinois and the US Senate.

Was there some issue in Illinois where a Republican said that Obama was friendly or something? I just don't see it. He's been even more divisive than Hillary in my opinion. On social issues, he's a hard liner, there's no way in hell that he's going to be some kind of moderate voice of reason.

You really haven't read his book, eh? Or listened to anything he has to say, for that matter. Calling Obama a "hard liner" is rather funny, actually.

OK, but I think you get my point. She attends official functions and ceremonies. She is unable to hold any outside employment. She has a staff. It's a pretty formal informal position.

OK, answer me this: which do you think will give one a better basis for understanding - meeting a few foreign leaders in formal ceremonial functions or living abroad for four years?

Damn straight. Missionary kids, diplomatic kids, and generally speaking anybody who grew up in two or more cultures during their formative years. Such as yours truly.

Slightly more on topic, I reckon it does make excellent general training for foreign policy and the like. Simply because you are more tolerant of most other people's cultures, you are generally more understanding, and you've been brought up with a much more international outlook.

Excellent.

I totally disagree. Having been the first lady and having experience not only in meeting other countries leaders, but also in dealing with them personally, is a major qualification. Just diving into international relations can be a disaster, seeing as there is plenty of broken glass.

Again, I'll ask you the same question as EC.

True dat. Hillary has the bonus of handing out Diplomas at my Berlin Highschool though. Having lived abroad helps, but there's plenty of people that it didn't benefit in the least.

True, true. I'd say it appears to have benifited Obama.

We're TCKs. :p
Seriously though. Him having grown up in places other than the US is probably why he considers something as unimportant as a patriotic lapel pin as unimportant.

Oops, typos FTL. (>.<)

(And interestingly, the TCKs seem to becoming out of the woodwork.)

He has a consistent reputation for working with Republicans to find compromise on measures - both in the Illinois and the US Senate.

Yes indeed.

You really haven't read his book, eh? Or listened to anything he has to say, for that matter. Calling Obama a "hard liner" is rather funny, actually.

Again, yes.

OK, answer me this: which do you think will give one a better basis for understanding - meeting a few foreign leaders in formal ceremonial functions or living abroad for four years?


Ideally you should be able to do both. One gives you a sense of what goes on in the chambers of power, and one gives you an idea of what the man on the street is thinking. But forced to choose between the two, I would go with living abroad. Once you go into the chambers of power, it's hard to get back down to the street level again, so that experience is hard to duplicate.

Again, I wasn't trying to argue that Hillary was any more qualified than Obama. In fact, I think Obama's got the better credentials. I was just arguing against people who were trying to discount her experience as first lady entirely.

While I think her meeting world leaders and forming a relationship with them is a good thing, I believe its impact is minimal.
I disagree, because, as stated, I think foreign relations is very relational. But I see where you are coming from.


It would be a little odd for her to hold outside employment. Could you see Laura down at the IHOP trying to "make ends meet?"

No. But on the other hand, I don't see why they couldn't continue to practice their chosen profession rather than being some accessory for their husbands ...


I would trust her more to lead our country than I would Laura or Babs. Being first lady is not enough to give you creds. Being a first lady who is just as involved in politics as your husband is does make a difference. That being said I am not a Hillary supporter. My vote goes to McCain or Obama as I think Rudy is a lost cause at this point. As a native New Yorker I loved Rudy on 9-10-01, but the likelihood of him becoming President is slim to none.


Fair enough. HIllary isn't tops of my list either.

While I think her meeting world leaders and forming a relationship with them is a good thing, I believe its impact is minimal.
I disagree, because, as stated, I think foreign relations is very relational. But I see where you are coming from.


It would be a little odd for her to hold outside employment. Could you see Laura down at the IHOP trying to "make ends meet?"

No. But on the other hand, I don't see why they couldn't continue to practice their chosen profession rather than being some accessory for their husbands ...


I would trust her more to lead our country than I would Laura or Babs. Being first lady is not enough to give you creds. Being a first lady who is just as involved in politics as your husband is does make a difference. That being said I am not a Hillary supporter. My vote goes to McCain or Obama as I think Rudy is a lost cause at this point. As a native New Yorker I loved Rudy on 9-10-01, but the likelihood of him becoming President is slim to none.


Fair enough. HIllary isn't tops of my list either.

Ideally you should be able to do both. One gives you a sense of what goes on in the chambers of power, and one gives you an idea of what the man on the street is thinking. But forced to choose between the two, I would go with living abroad. Once you go into the chambers of power, it's hard to get back down to the street level again, so that experience is hard to duplicate.

Indeed.

Again, I wasn't trying to argue that Hillary was any more qualified than Obama. In fact, I think Obama's got the better credentials. I was just arguing against people who were trying to discount her experience as first lady entirely.

Fair enough. My original point was that (at lest some) people are over crediting Clintons quals and under playing Obamas.

(And interestingly, the TCKs seem to becoming out of the woodwork.)

I'd bet that NS is probably going to have a slightly higher than normal proportion. Combine that with the fact that we probably aren't hugely rare these days, and the fact that whether people comment on a thread is related to if it interests them, and I'm fairly unsurprised by two or three.

If we got a dozen or so that would surprise me.