Yes, we can.

[lashbear]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I happen to think ability is the most important issue in this election, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

In the grand scheme of things, I think it's much more important that a person who is capable of doing the job be elected to the highest position of power and status in the world..

Just let me slip a song in here....

I remind them on their own behalf
To think of celebrated heads of state
Or specially great communicators
Did they have brains or knowledge?
Don't make me laugh!

They were popular! Please -
It's all about popular!
It's not about aptitude
It's the way you're viewed
So it's very shrewd to be
Very very popular like me!

Folks is like that.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by lashbear

Just let me slip a song in here....

I have this image of you in a blonde wig with pointy pink slippers now. THANKS!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Thanks, CP. Keep the Obama info coming!

Ok, umm....<pages through large reference book>....he.....has a penis. At least, that's what most pundits believe. I guess for some that's a deal breaker.




Anyway - a good bit of info for the moment:

The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I was trying to think of another female world leader who was a "gentle flower of a woman". i went through quite a few...... Golda Maier, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Queen Victoria, Indira Gandhi, Catherine the greati .... I couldn't come up with one.

Don't even try to convince me that Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher were bitches. I do know a thing or two about them. Yes, Margo may have been hard, and Golda was outspoken. They were both strong people, but when I say "bitch", I don't mean a strong person, of course. I mean a bitch.

Originally Posted by Alex

I'd really prefer to see people not consider Clinton the best choice to run the country without that making it ok to call her bitch and ****, even in jest, any more than the same decision about Obama would make it ok to break out the ******s and porch monkeys followed by winks.

I guess I missed that moment when "bitch" crossed over into the territory of "porch monkey". Calling someone names due to their genetic makeup is a totally different deal than calling them names because of their attitude and actions.

"Oh, but bitch is a FEMALE put down", you say. To me, I could as easily call her a sanctimonious asshole, but that's a lot more to say, and I'm not sure I'm spelling it right.

[scaeagles]

I see Obama as being a naive when it comes to foreign policy. While I believe that most Americans want to sit down and chat about things, this is not the case with many cultures, where posturing is as important as what is said. How many wars have had peace talks where it took longer to discuss the size and shape of the table than it did to actaully come to terms once there?

It isn't even an issue of talking with a leader. It's an issue of giving them legitimacy. Why do you suppose so many Middle Eastern countries refuse to even recognize Israel?

Even when we do sit down and talk, it doesn't mean a good outcome. Look at our current relationship with Russia. Putin and Bush get along personally, and theytalk, but Russia has immense opposition to the missile shield, and they are providing Iran with nuclear material and technology against what most of the world would seem to think is a good idea. It is straining relations no matter how much we talk about it.

This isn't just the Bush-Cheney approach - it is the approach of previous Presidents as well, and more common than uncommon. Would the Cuban Missile Crisis have played differently today? Why didn't Kennedy just talk to Castro and Kruschev instead of taking such a risky action? The examples are limitless. While I don't really like what I think Obama would do domestically, I truly fear his inexperience and direction in foreign policy, because he seems to think these leaders we "don't like" want to talk to us rationally with goals of compromise in mind. North Korea got their nukes in just that way with Clinton. These dictators are not to be trusted.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Ok, umm....<pages through large reference book>....he.....has a penis. At least, that's what most pundits believe. I guess for some that's a deal breaker.

Zing!

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Calling someone names due to their genetic makeup is a totally different deal than calling them names because of their attitude and actions.

"Oh, but bitch is a FEMALE put down", you say. To me, I could as easily call her a sanctimonious asshole, but that's a lot more to say, and I'm not sure I'm spelling it right.

Well, even if you're calling her names because of her attitude the names you're choosing are because of her genetic make-up.

By why is it necessary to call her names of any type? Why can't you just not like her. "I don't like her personality." "I don't like the way he behaves." Maybe you apply a rigorous screening process to who you're willing to use the word on but based on my experience of hearing the word (and the much more worse, so far as most people feel, ****) over the last few days it is simply how people refer to women they don't like.

As NA said above, there is something discordant about simultaneously praising Obama as someone who creates an atmosphere of positivity and can work across acrimonious divides while taking the person who only slightly disagrees with him and going straight to pretty harsh name calling.

I know nobody is likely to believe me but when I made my post I was not particularly thinking of you, though your comment was in the general mix. I honestly did not recall that you had used a wink smiley until I just now went back to look at what you had specifically said. Pretty much it was just a response to the fact that over the last week it seems to have become broadly ok for everybody to use derogatory female slurs when referring to her and I'd really rather, if changing the tone and atmosphere is something to be desired that we all just disagree with those we disagree with and keep any of the, frankly stupid, name calling out of it.

But I am curious since you say you use it with very specific meaning but I have no idea what you specifically mean by it: what are the qualifications that make Clinton a bitch?

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Alex

...what are the qualifications that make Clinton a bitch?

I know it when I see it.

[scaeagles]

Is everyone forgetting that CP was....um....joking? The little smiley and all?

Perhaps this is something similar to how black men can call each other the N word but no one else can? Don't know - just throwing it out. Perhaps this is where the conversation has moved, but I just don't want CP to drop out of this thread, as I know she's gotten frustrated with political threads before.

[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.