Woody wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:Anyone left who is undecided is, flatly, a moron. It's a shame that they can't somehow be disqualified from the process.

I don't know who I'm voting for.

I'd handicap as such
McCain -120
Obama +120

McCain -105
Barr +180
Obama +400

karn wrote:Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist.

This is pure unadulterated Kool Aid.

karn wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

I did not and would not say anything about going so far as to listen to the preferences of foreigners. What I am talking about, however, seems fairly basic to me: there is no good or logical argument against having a president who is internationally respected as a leader. It is the kind of thing that can only be a plus. It's not a dealbreaker for me by any means, but adds another measure of soundness to my opinion that Obama is the better qualified candidate.

I think they simply like what they've heard of his foreign policy speeches, and they think Obama is more likely to submit to the whims of the UN than McCain is.

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

I did not and would not say anything about going so far as to listen to the preferences of foreigners. What I am talking about, however, seems fairly basic to me: there is no good or logical argument against having a president who is internationally respected as a leader. It is the kind of thing that can only be a plus. It's not a dealbreaker for me by any means, but adds another measure of soundness to my opinion that Obama is the better qualified candidate.

I think they simply like what they've heard of his foreign policy speeches, and they think Obama is more likely to submit to the whims of the UN than McCain is.

Ok I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

Please tell me what in recent history the U.N. has been trying to push on us that we have been vetoing.

More food for thought.

Everybody Wins?

mpmcgraw wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

I did not and would not say anything about going so far as to listen to the preferences of foreigners. What I am talking about, however, seems fairly basic to me: there is no good or logical argument against having a president who is internationally respected as a leader. It is the kind of thing that can only be a plus. It's not a dealbreaker for me by any means, but adds another measure of soundness to my opinion that Obama is the better qualified candidate.

I think they simply like what they've heard of his foreign policy speeches, and they think Obama is more likely to submit to the whims of the UN than McCain is.

Ok I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

Please tell me what in recent history the U.N. has been trying to push on us that we have been vetoing.

karn wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

I did not and would not say anything about going so far as to listen to the preferences of foreigners. What I am talking about, however, seems fairly basic to me: there is no good or logical argument against having a president who is internationally respected as a leader. It is the kind of thing that can only be a plus. It's not a dealbreaker for me by any means, but adds another measure of soundness to my opinion that Obama is the better qualified candidate.

I agree. Unless the reason that he is preferred is because he is not respected. Savvy? I'm not saying this applies to Obama at all, but it's obvious that foreign support will almost always fall on the candidate with a more passive (for lack of a more nuanced word) foreign policy.

mpmcgraw wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:The argument against Obama of inexperience is as flimsy as the one that the American president should be picked independent of international consideration, given the extent globalization has impacted economic and political process and policy.

There's inexperience and there's lack of qualification. Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist. By the same measure, anyone who does see Palin as a qualified and capable candidate is most likely not a critical thinker.

Perhaps you can argue how exactly we Americans are better off when we listen to what foreign citizens would prefer? It's not inherently obvious to me, especially when speaking in generalities, why the preference of France's or any other country's population is what's best for the US citizenry. Wouldn't any other country not strongly allied with our foreign policy objectives want the wussiest President on the ballot to be elected?

I did not and would not say anything about going so far as to listen to the preferences of foreigners. What I am talking about, however, seems fairly basic to me: there is no good or logical argument against having a president who is internationally respected as a leader. It is the kind of thing that can only be a plus. It's not a dealbreaker for me by any means, but adds another measure of soundness to my opinion that Obama is the better qualified candidate.

I think they simply like what they've heard of his foreign policy speeches, and they think Obama is more likely to submit to the whims of the UN than McCain is.

Ok I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

Please tell me what in recent history the U.N. has been trying to push on us that we have been vetoing.

Now, I don't really read newspapers much, but a few isntances come to mind, in which the US is at odds with the UN security council. Perhaps you could look at Iraq, maybe Russia?

Werthless wrote:Edit: Anyone fond of making blanket generalities, as in your second paragraph, is probably unwilling and unable to appreciate nuanced argument in an elucidation of your first paragraph. See, that was a fun game.

And I appreciate nuanced argument maybe as much or more than anyone ever has. I crave it and it completes me. The only reason I'm wont to speak generally in matters like this goes back again to my realm of comprehension. I literally can't imagine what line of logic could lead someone to the conclusion that either Obama is unqualified or that Palin is qualified. So it's not even something that I can see as being worth putting forth the effort to make a serious argument.

VoxOrion wrote:

karn wrote:Anyone who doesn't recognize Obama as a mature and qualified candidate is even-odds to be a racist.

This is pure unadulterated Kool Aid.

See my above post

jerseyhoya wrote:

Woody wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:Anyone left who is undecided is, flatly, a moron. It's a shame that they can't somehow be disqualified from the process.

I don't know who I'm voting for.

I'd handicap as such
McCain -120
Obama +120

McCain -105
Barr +180
Obama +400

No line on Baldwin? Everyone's in the running!

Werthless wrote:What I find interesting is Obama's comments against NAFTA (which he later partially retracted, if I recall correctly). What message does this send to our American neighbors, and how do they feel about Obama's tough talk about protecting US jobs? While I'm a huge supporter of free trade absent any conditions, I don't think Obama's stance should be examined under the lens of foreign countries. Instead, you should focus EXCLUSIVELY on whether his policies reflect your understanding of the policies he supports, and how it affects the world you live in.

That last sentence is loaded, though. Given that many of the issues facing us in the next 10-20 years seem to be global (environmental, energy, rise of radical Islam), the scope of the world that I care about is the entire world, not just my day to day world. I probably have this perspective in part because I spend so much of my day-to-day for my job dealing with folks in Japan, Europe, and India, plus I have a vested interest in Israel as a Jew (though so far I haven't been significantly convinced either way that McCain or Obama is better for Israel, they both seem to be pretty strongly pro-Israel).

So to me, the world I live in is Earth, and part of my decision making process in picking a candidate is definitely giving "voice" to the folks who want Obama but can't vote for him because they aren't citizens. Overall that's a tiny factor, but Karn and Camp Holdout said it well already--the rest of the world already loves him and respects him as a leader, and I can't see how that is a bad thing. There are about a million other factors that are playing a bigger role in my decision, and the biggest at this point is keeping Sarah Palin in Anchorage.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Woody wrote:

Werthless wrote:

karn wrote:Anyone left who is undecided is, flatly, a moron. It's a shame that they can't somehow be disqualified from the process.

I don't know who I'm voting for.

I'd handicap as such
McCain -120
Obama +120

McCain -105
Barr +180
Obama +400

No line on Baldwin? Everyone's in the running!

Where the frick is Nader?

here is a more specific example for werthless i find myself thinking about... because i think his question is really important.

on november 5th there will non-us-citizens who walk past a guy reading a USA Today newspaper (and that will be the exact paper). this non us-citizen might be a 13 year old boy in pakistan. or she might be a 10 year old girl in China. or a 15 year old boy if Iran. he/she probably wont know the name of the guy on the newspaper cover with his arms raised, but his/her parents probably will. he/she will see either John McCain or Barack Obama on this newspaper cover.

I would like for him to see Barack Obama on this cover because I would like the person holding that newspaper that he sees to have a smile on his face.

I would like for this experience to somehow factor into him/her not hating america and wanting to blow it up when he/she is 18 years old. In fact, i'd like that experience to somehow factor into him/her changing their perceptions of some things they might have heard about the kind of people who live in America and whether we are good people or bad people.

I don't know if it will.

So, is that example fair to John McCain/Sarah Palin? Probably not. But i believe it to still be important. And i believe that Barack Obama (rightfully earned or not) is the one who could make this experience possible for a lot of kids/teenagers around the world.

seke2 wrote:So to me, the world I live in is Earth, and part of my decision making process in picking a candidate is definitely giving "voice" to the folks who want Obama but can't vote for him because they aren't citizens. Overall that's a tiny factor, but Karn and Camp Holdout said it well already--the rest of the world already loves him and respects him as a leader, and I can't see how that is a bad thing. There are about a million other factors that are playing a bigger role in my decision, and the biggest at this point is keeping Sarah Palin in Anchorage.

Bold emphasis is mine.

I would caution that we need to be careful in assuming that "love" equals "respect as a leader".

For example, Reagan wasn't universally loved by any stretch of the imagination, but he was widely respected.

karn wrote:

Werthless wrote:Edit: Anyone fond of making blanket generalities, as in your second paragraph, is probably unwilling and unable to appreciate nuanced argument in an elucidation of your first paragraph. See, that was a fun game.

And I appreciate nuanced argument maybe as much or more than anyone ever has. I crave it and it completes me. The only reason I'm wont to speak generally in matters like this goes back again to my realm of comprehension. I literally can't imagine what line of logic could lead someone to the conclusion that either Obama is unqualified or that Palin is qualified. So it's not even something that I can see as being worth putting forth the effort to make a serious argument.

While I think Obama is perfectly qualified, I have low hurdles for what is required to become President. It's arrogant to assume the line has to be between Obama and Palin. I can imagine reasonable people that would require a full term in the Senate. I am not one of these people, but I'm not too full of myself to call them racist on that alone.

Blanket statements are always bad. Except when they're appropriate.

Man, you guys were busy while I was out doing something akin to actual work.

The "world opinion" consideration is not zero, but the truth is that America has too big of a market, too mighty a military, and too influential a culture for the world to give us a timeout, regardless of who's in charge. And I think McCain, while perhaps not as palatable to your average Frenchy or Deutchlander or Swede as Obama, is more than capable of winning over world opinion, all things being equal.

(What I'm not sure about is that all things are equal. Probably my single biggest concern about McCain is that he'd get us into more wars, and right now nothing would do further harm to our soft power than engaging in more wars.)

The difference might be that Obama would have an easier time engaging the world community in nation-building in Iraq or Afghanistan, or building a Bush 41-like coalition against Iran if need be, or taking steps to economically isolate Russia or China for bad behavior. But even that is speculative, and probably has as much to do with how much skill and discretion the Secretary of State has, as with the president's jawboning abilities.

edit: all bets are off if, god forbid, Palin assumes the presidency. Foreign relations would be disastrous, with the very slight consolation that myriad other disasters would jump ahead in line...

Mountainphan wrote:

seke2 wrote:So to me, the world I live in is Earth, and part of my decision making process in picking a candidate is definitely giving "voice" to the folks who want Obama but can't vote for him because they aren't citizens. Overall that's a tiny factor, but Karn and Camp Holdout said it well already--the rest of the world already loves him and respects him as a leader, and I can't see how that is a bad thing. There are about a million other factors that are playing a bigger role in my decision, and the biggest at this point is keeping Sarah Palin in Anchorage.

Bold emphasis is mine.

I would caution that we need to be careful in assuming that "love" equals "respect as a leader".

I didn't assume equal, I assume (and believe) both are true.

Werthless wrote:Now, I don't really read newspapers much, but a few isntances come to mind, in which the US is at odds with the UN security council. Perhaps you could look at Iraq, maybe Russia?

You mean when the U.S. wanted the U.N. to go in with us in Iraq and France said no there's no evidence of WMD's and you are opening a can of worms there? They were so wrong.

And they were not trying to impose their will upon the U.S. They were not trying to stop us, they just didn't want to go in with us.

Camp Holdout wrote:here is a more specific example for werthless i find myself thinking about... because i think his question is really important.

on november 5th there will non-us-citizens who walk past a guy reading a USA Today newspaper (and that will be the exact paper). this non us-citizen might be a 13 year old boy in pakistan. or she might be a 10 year old girl in China. or a 15 year old boy if Iran. he/she probably wont know the name of the guy on the newspaper cover with his arms raised, but his/her parents probably will. he/she will see either John McCain or Barack Obama on this newspaper cover.

I would like for him to see Barack Obama on this cover because I would like the person holding that newspaper that he sees to have a smile on his face.

I would like for this experience to somehow factor into him/her not hating america and wanting to blow it up when he/she is 18 years old. In fact, i'd like that experience to somehow factor into him/her changing their perceptions of some things they might have heard about the kind of people who live in America and whether we are good people or bad people.

I don't know if it will.

So, is that example fair to John McCain/Sarah Palin? Probably not. But i believe it to still be important. And i believe that Barack Obama (rightfully earned or not) is the one who could make this experience possible for a lot of kids/teenagers around the world.

I think it's safe to say that I'm not going to base my yet undecided vote on how many kids I can make cry.