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.

[lashbear]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I happen to think gender is the most important issue in this election.
.

I still agree on that one. - it's interesting to see that Oprah's choice of Candidate confirms that she don't want no woman in this [your] country to be near as powerful as her !!

[blueerica]

You know, I'm not a fan of Hillary. I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over who wins the Dem nomination. But, I think it's rather ridiculous that this conversation has gone on this far on the basis of gender or race. Okay... I get it... can we get over those issues and get into some other ones? If that's the basis you're voting on someone for, then fine, cool, whatever. And for everyone else, if that's the basis they're voting on, then just be fine, cool, whatever... and move on. Because minds just aren't going to be changed over something as huge and polarizing as that. Please. For the sake of humanity!

Not that anyone else will. Guaranteed the pundits will keep going on and on and on and on about the same retarded issue of gender or race until the decision has been made.

[blueerica]

OK, I literally choked on my water... I wish I could have been cool and spit, but I didn't feel like cleaning my desk. Well done, STC, well done...

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Thank you, SacTown!

[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.

[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.

[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. (Oops, I mean he's a nice person - I better be careful not to use gender specific descriptors.)

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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?

Dropping ourselves down to the level of countries based on oppression and hatred is going to ruin our culture. We have lost moral ground, we have lost respect from other respectable countries, and we have lost respect for ourselves.

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.

There are no guarantees in life. I don't think anyone would argue that things are worse now with Russia than they were during the Cold War.

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.

I could not begin to answer a historical puzzle such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I don't expect anyone else to either. I've seen what silence and dehumanizing the enemy can do. I am convinced that it is our responsibility to be as civil as we can, to be an example, to be proud of ourselves. Hence my sig line.

These dictators are not to be trusted.

I'd never trust a dictator, which is why keeping tabs on what's really going on is just as vital as all the table talk.

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

My dislike for her personality has nothing to do with where her politics lie.

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.

To be honest I completely agree with you. I originally used the word with a wink because it was (obviously, at least to me) an over the top joke. The reason I came back and reacted to people giving me sh.t for using THE B WORD is that I found it interesting that people would think that I was discounting Clinton because she's a woman. I do not discount strong women. I do not use the word "bitch" for strong women. Perhaps people forget - I AM a woman. And yes, I do believe you, Alex. When you are speaking generally, you speak generally.

Although the original post was a joke, the more I discussed it here the more I realized that for me personally, I have no problem using the word for her.

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?

Seriously, I just pulled up dictionary.com, and it seems pretty accurate to me: "a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman. " Selfish and unpleasant, definitely. Malicious, eh, maybe I wouldn't go that far. Yeah, completely subjective, completely based on impressions. And I'm not alone.

In any case - points have been made all around. I'm up for ending name-calling. The irony of discussing being civil in our foreign policy dealings and defending calling someone a bitch in the same post is not lost on me.