Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Aww, sweet of you, scaeagles. Even though I disagree with much of your statement on foreign policy above, you're still a gentleman.

How dare you!

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Dropping ourselves down to the level of countries based on oppression and hatred is going to ruin our culture.

I'm not sure how it detroys our culture.

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I could not begin to answer a historical puzzle such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I don't expect anyone else to either.

Yet we are expected to, without the benefit of hindsight and even less information available to us than there currently is on the CMC, solve the puzzle of Iran and terrorism and whatever else. On a side note, I recently watched a history channel special on how the real danger during the CMC was submarine based and how certain only recently declassified operations nearly led to major disaster.

[SacTown Chronic]

The banner on HiilaryClinton.com reads "Hillary for President". Barack Obama's web site says "Obama '08".



BarbaraBush.com declares, "I'm not a man!"*






*May not be true.

[Alex]

Yes, and I wasn't talking specifically to her (though it really ended up looking like I was). More than anything what inspired my comment here was the **** and little evil grin smiley.

But she has now said that she wasn't really kidding that she does think Clinton is a bitch, so I am curious what qualifies her for that in her opinion.

[innerSpaceman]

scaeagles, are you discounting the value gained with our allies when we have all those unproductive talks with our enemies? In reading the Obama quote, it seemed to me that's the emphasis he was making.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

scaeagles, are you discounting the value gained with our allies when we have all those unproductive talks with our enemies? In reading the Obama quote, it seemed to me that's the emphasis he was making.

That could be. However, international leadership and relations change all the time, even very recently. For example, recent elections in Australia and England - the two staunchest supporters of out policies - have put in power in the hands of leaders who want to move in a different direction. In France (and Germany to an extent), the exact opposite is true, as Sarkozy openly campaigned on a desire to work more with the US. Former Soviet satillite states, who 20 years ago were in opposition to everything we did, now are close allies.

Because of that, I can't stop to look at what sort of prestige we have in the world or what foreign leaders have to say about us. It changes all the time. With the cold war, we were covering the asses of Europe and of course they were going to support us because they needed us (France being the exception, as they even pulled out of NATO in the 80s for a while if I am recalling my history correctly).

[Alex]

Oh never mind. I don't need to pursue, I just don't understand the urge towards name calling and I've made that point.

[€uroMeinke]

I think it is interesting to deconstruct the language of the campaign - How we refer to Hillary by her first name and Obama by his last - the acceptable name calling.

I understand the disdain, though I admire her for not wanting to stay home and bake cookies I see she has been demonized the same way Nancy Reagan was when we assumed she was really pulling the strings of government.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out when both sides only have one candidate and they actually differ from one another more significantly than by their DNA.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Oh, and we refer to Clinton by her first name just as we are inclined to refer to Bush as Dubya.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Oh, and we refer to Clinton by her first name just as we are inclined to refer to Bush as Dubya.

Yeah, I used that excuse as well - but it's not like I called the other president Bill. As part of my PoMo convictions I see language shaping reality. I think up till now the conservatives have done a great job in controlling the language in their favor, convincing us that dems were "tax and spend" even when they were delivering surpluses.

I have noticed the Bitch term more liberally used in the last week and I have to wonder if it too marks a turning point in the democratic primary. Perhaps what is attractive about Obama is he's bringing a new vocabulary to the campaign, I admit it sways me as well.

Still I have to go back to what people are saying about Hillary how they chose to refer to her in person and in press and how you can see the subtle as well as obvious digs.

I heard an African American pundit on NPR exclaim when asked about Latin prejudice against blacks, that "they aren't racist, they just associate blacks with poverty." Indeed. So I wonder if we are similarly not sexist?

Perhaps we'd feel better if Hillary was more Elenore Roosevelt baking cookies for the troops and keeping her work behind the scenes.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Yeah, I used that excuse as well - but it's not like I called the other president Bill.

No, you mistook my meaning. We call her Hillary because there's already been a well-known Clinton. We call him Dubya because there's already a well-known Bush.

Have I said "Enough with the dynasties" lately?