It's interesting that you bring up Israel and Yitzhak Rabin as some kind of great example of unconditional diplomacy with their enemies. Other then Egypt, whom they negotiated with out of strength and with a third party as part of the talks, what has Israel gained from direct negotiations? They are still surrounded by people who wish for their destruction.
When you are talking about negotiated with Iran, you have to decide who is in the right first (although not popular on the left, I think it's us). Then you lay out the common sense demands that are currently shared by the U.S., the European Union, the U.N. and most other rational countries in the world. If they are willing to comply with these demands, and prove it, you can then start discussions on how to bring them into the civilized world through improved trade agreements and aid.
Obama's position is childish and dangerous. I'm sick of people blaming the U.S. for Iran's actions over the last 8 years. How about we blame Iran for their own actions over the last 8 years.
Hey genius.... he didn't say all deregulation. It's just like many issues, you have to examine things on a case by case basis. As a general rule, we want new businesses to startup and not be in constant fear of being sued or breaking some obscure "do-gooder" regulation. If product safety deregulation has caused problems, then you address it on its merits and put in place reasonable laws.
Or you can just jump to the extreme example and disregard the fact that there is no evidence Obama wouldn't support tougher product safety regulations.
I find this whole "troll" thing laughable. As a conservative, I've been banned or considered a "troll" just for disagreeing. If someone is being abusive or practicing excessive name calling, then they should be banned. I've been banned for not falling in line with the blog.
It seems that freedom of speech on the liberal blogs sometimes takes a back seat. So far, MYDD has not banned me which I respect. Unless of course the purpose of a left-leaning blog is an exclusive club where the only disagreement is how far left you can go.
Despite all of the annoying links embedded in your comments, you fail to understand that even if Perot didn't help Clinton, Clinton still won the election with a plurality of votes, never garnering 50%. Whether Perot voters pushed Clinton over the top is debatable despite your so-called evidence. In my opinion, Clinton won both of his elections because he was up against bad candidates in Bush and Dole. Bush and Dole were not motivated to campaign and were lifeless in the debates. They both had a sense of entitlement, that is, they thought it was their turn to be President after years of public service and their sacrifices in WWII. This is not enough and it was proven out.
Sometimes candidates win the Presidency because they look stellar compared to their worthless opponents (see Carter, Mondale and Dukakis).
Bill Clinton was not a centrist in my opinion. Any centrist policies he supported were forced upon him by a Republican controlled congress. Maybe he should be considered pragmatic.
Um... lets be intellectually honest here jc. If a Republican had been a member of a church for 20 years that spewed any kind of racism, and that Republican considered the pastor his spiritual mentor, you wouldn't, at a minimum accuse him of bad judgment? (btw... judgment is a key quality that Obama is running on).
I don't think he believes any of this crap his pastor is spewing, but it's a question of judgment, or pandering to the Black community by being associated to a church he doesn't really believe in.
Interesting marcotom... I'm not exactly sure why a discussion about the consequences of a unilateral pull-out of Iraq is insulting. Unless of course you do in fact only see this discussion from a politically opportunistic viewpoint. Perhaps if we started basing our decision on what is right for America as opposed to what is right for our political party, much more progress would be made.
I recognize the reality that the war is not supported by most of the public, but that alone should not drive our foreign policy if we want to hold to our core beliefs of human rights, democracy and stability in a dangerous region.
Here's a thought Todd... Rather then painting Republicans that support staying in Iraq as war-loving and continuing to use the war as a political tool, why don't the Democrats seize the opportunity to stand up for what they supposedly have stood for throughout the years, supporting human rights and supporting the down-trodden. They could do this by stating that they don't support the initial reasons for going in and liberating Iraq but the fact is that we are there now and they don't want a genocide or a breeding ground for Islamic extremists. The Democrats could show that they support freedom in the Middle East, they could clean up the no-bid contracting and profiteering going on and they could demonstrate that they can be entrusted with the awesome job of protecting and defending the country and the spread of Democratic ideals throughout the world.
Remember, pacifism only works if it's practiced by both parties in a conflict.
Are you serious? Jewishjake said "We have seen conservatives be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. so much, we just are desensitized to it, and when they are accused of such, we just add it up to the other billion times its happened."
I'll revise my statement to say that he was a product of "a" worthless public education rather then "our" worthless public education. The broad brush painting happens on both sides, I'll admit that. Can you admit the same?
Great point. I don't get and never have gotten this fascination people have with the Clintons. Bill never received 50% of the vote, we lost the House of Reps under him after 40 years of control, he spent his idle time getting his hog slurped in the oval office... etc, etc, etc. And along comes his wife who's gets elected to the Senate because she's married to him.
Now we have a clear, clear, alternative in Obama. We don't have to suck-up to the Clintons anymore. I recognize that everyone here is hell bent on beating the Republicans. But we don't need Clinton to accomplish this for us. I feel that the Clintons give liberalism a bad name. Bill let down an entire Baby-boom generation with his philandering. Let's lose both of them while we have the chance.
Well I've been to the local anti-war protests in my community and I believe that the Democratic candidates are pandering to them. These rallies contain a collection of the weirdest groups on the planet, with signs and costumes that appear to me to be psychotic in nature. I wouldn't transpose this image to the bulk of Democrats though.
I don't think you really know what a neocon imperialist is. This seems like just a code word on the left that has no meaning other then "Republicans want to take over the world with their corporate buddies".
Well I appreciate you asking that question. It's actually very surprising that you would be interested because I've found the exact opposite on blogs.
Because I am a recovering Liberal, I often attempted to engage people on blogs in a debate over core beliefs and ideology thinking that I might be able to make them reconsider their world view. But this proved to be futile. And I don't mean that in a negative way because when it comes down to it, most people can't change their core beliefs and I shouldn't have been so naive to think they would.
Rather then bore you with my story of transition from liberal to conservative, lets just say that I believe that most people live their lives as conservatives even though they don't know it. I suspect many people on this blog would relate conservatism to racist/homophobic/imperialist/war monger/out for the rich... etc. I could shoot down all those arguments and depictions but whats the point.
I just think at a high level, liberals have some kind of blinders on that does not allow them to see the realities of human nature and how that human nature impacts all forms of our lives, especially capitalism and individual responsibility. My mother (who I love dearly) is a liberal but just by default. She does not follow politics but just thinks that Democrats will do a better job of protecting and caring for the disadvantaged. This is a heart-felt belief that she has so I would never try to change her mind. But at it's core, it's a simplistic "feelings" based position.
There are a million other reasons I am a conservative and countless examples of why I love this country so much (even if Obama or Clinton wins). But I suspect nobody here will care. I just hope if your side does win, the greatness of the American Capitalist system is still championed and the respect and adoration for our Military is still recognized. Cheers!
Jake... you sound like a product of our worthless public education system. Really, it's comments like yours that give left-wing blogging a bad name. The broad brush painting you've spewed against Republicans is juvenile and ignorant. You seem oblivious to the fact that whether you like it or not, there are millions of conservatives/republicans in this country. You don't have to agree with them. You can debate them and shoot down their ideas. But this type of elitist propaganda is what will cause the blogging to have less and less influence in the public domain.
I'm a conservative and myself and none of my friends are as you describe us. Maybe you just need to take the blinders off and get out there into the real world and meet some people. I'd be happy to debate you on this an any number of issues but you would have to bring your A-Game.
Nice try easyE... It has little to do with sexism and much to do with the fact that she is not likable. Never underestimate this attribute in a person. What you need is that perfect combination of a strong woman who is likable, of which there are many. But Hillary is not one. She is a poor speaker with little charisma up against a great speaker with much charisma who shares most of her views. The perfect storm against her. America is ready to elect a woman, just not her.