I found it to be quitenaive. The whole concept of "dignity promotion" doesn't work, as was evidenced by the whole Somalia debacle. When those in power in these backwards countries use food and living conditions as a weapon, you can't achieve these things without force, and minimal force may not even be enough, and without the guts to stick it out and fleeing as we did in Somalia we simply look stupid and weak.

Dictators are not typically concerned with the well being - or "dignity" - of their people.

What does? Providing food and goods so that the marauding bands of militia men can steal it? Look at what happened in Ethiopia, where during the famines food sat and rotted on docks because those in control of the roads wouldn't allow it to be shipped where it was needed.

In talking about feeding people and relieving malaria and the likes, there are not many people that would suggest that Bush has not been the most pro-Africa President of all. He has been doing the very things discussed where it is possible to do it. That's not change, so you're right - it's the continuation of what Bush is doing in Africa right now - again, not everywhere, but where possible.

They demagogue the misery that they create intentionally. Dictators don't want to end the misery of the people they control. It's the primary way they control them (along with fear).

I have so much more to offer on why I consider this beyond naive, but not the time nor desire to continue doing so.

One can't argue with dignity promotion. That was the best justification for the Civilian Conservation Corps. Still, it sounds like an uphill battle at best. People get a lot of easy dignity from an infallible religion, a machete or an M16. Plus, Scaeagles is probably right. Gandhi wouldn't have gotten very far if his opponent had been Stalin instead of the British.

Since singular votes don't really matter with the delegate system, I don't think she's doing anything unusual.

Ummm. You don't think that's the way things are done?

Not sure if this is the best thread to put this in, but I got a kick out of the incident with Chelsea Clinton the other day.

She was at Butler College in Indiana on Tuesday and was asked whether her Mother's response to her Father's infidelity with Monica Lewinsky had damaged Mom's credibility. I love her response:

You go girl!

The Yahoo News story with the headline of "Flash: Chelsea Clinton is a Competent Adult"
______________________

And I have to say, she (Chelsea) is looking much better with age!

Disregarding a vote is somewhat troubling. I hope, however, that I end up electing a president who will disregard the average citizen's opinion.

I do wonder how much of this is an act. Is she indulging in so much juvenile, schoolyard, power-mad bad behavior because it makes her look like a Republican and she thinks it's what people are really used to, and, therefore, really want in a president?

I know it is. As a visual person, that is the mental image I get when I hear this is happening.

HAHAHA! Yeah, dems aren't power mad or juvenile, and hillary never, ever acted like this before the campaign. HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

There's a person being part of a panel on NPR right now making the argument that the call for Clinton to drop out of the race since her odds are long is misogynistic since such calls would never be made to a man. That for men the ideal is from sports where the game isn't over until the clock runs out.

Apparently she doesn't have a memory that runs back very far so doesn't recall the calls for Huckabee to drop out before McCain's victory was completely solidified. Or that Romney actually did drop out once his odds were long so that he could throw his support to the apparent victor.

Or the millions of people openly ridiculing Ralph Nader for running when he has no chance of victory and can only cause trouble for the actual winners.

Alex, I want to applaud your research on the bills topic. I'm far too lazy to look into it that far. (Which is why I grabbed ready-made comments when they presented themselves.)

I'm still not voting for Hillary if she wins.

Apparently there are a lot of people on both the Clinton and Obama side who have said they will not vote for the other if their candidate loses. I'm sure that will temper a bit, but if I recall Rasmussen released a poll today that said a full 22% of each candidates supporters would vote for McCain instead of the other.