"Obama is the only major candidate left in the race who sounds like he would even contemplate changing this dynamic, by negotiating with enemies and looking for ways to avoid the bellicosity of the Bush years."
"How Obama Could Create a Long-Term Democratic Majority"
“I think we’ve set the bar in terms of transparency and disclosure. That’s been a consistent theme of my campaign and my career in politics.”
"Why Obama?"
"It's Got to be Obama"
Five reasons Hillary should be worried
Obama is really starting to piss me off. He keeps saying he is about "change", but what does that mean? What will he actually change? He's running on an f-ing word without defining it.
ReplyDeleteYES! I'm glad you added more headlines. I haven't read the second article about how Obama would negotiate with enemies, but that is EXACTLY why he should not be elected.
ReplyDeleteThe "enemies" that Obama would negotiate with do not respect words whatsoever. Israel learned this a long time ago, but still tries to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority. In this part of the world, negotiation is a sign of weakness and only begs for more attacks. That's why not Obama. That's why it doesn't "got to be Obama".
I'm not sure how that makes much sense when the past 7 years have shown that not negotiating has not shown any strength and it's certainly led to more attacks. If just attacking enemies were effective, we wouldn't need another troop surge after the number of people we've already sent over.
ReplyDeletePlus I don't think any of this says negotiation would be the only tactic used. Surely the use of force is sometimes required. But the point is a reasonable attempt to negotiate should be used before just going and attacking people posing a true threat.
And I'm sure the change has been defined in multiple speeches though I can't dig one up while at work. But it's definitely not as nebulous as some of the others (read: Hillary) have made it. It covers Iraq withdrawal, ending special interests in Washington, universal healthcare, etc...basically the platform he's running on which involves changing a lot of the status quo.
It's probably good that our group of friends doesn't always share the same political views.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, we each only get one vote, and that won't decide much. From time to time, I may post pro-Obama articles or videos, and I just want you to know that I'm not trying to change your views or get into a big debate. I'm just trying to support the candidate that I think is exactly what America needs. And you can comment on why you don't want a black guy in the White House, you racist.
(Ha ha, I thought that was funny.)
I agree that some disagreement is good, because it will either make you realize you may not know all the issues, or it can help you solidify the fact that you're supporting what you think is right.
ReplyDeleteIn either case, I think some back-and-forth is healthy and productive as long as it's not attacking one's personal beliefs. (I don't mean to imply we're doing that, I mean for debating politics in general.)
Definitely agree to disagree. And yes, I don't want THIS black guy in the White House.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to contradict myself and Niraj, there's no way of knowing if Bush's policies have increased or decreased attacks.
It is good that we don't share the same opinions. Arguments can be healthy. Except with Dave because he's an idiot.