". . . and is against abortion . . ."

Those are really the only words that matter.

""Inexperience is no barrier, say admirers," reports an article by Andrew Ward in Friday's Financial Times. But there are also positive reasons."

For a moment, I thought you were talking about Obama supporters.

Hilarious, jack, you should be on comedy central.

I would like a McCain supporter to answer my biggest reason for voting Obama in November-- WITHOUT CHANGING THE SUBJECT to another issue. America's standing in the world has never been lower, LARGELY due to George Bush and the Republican leadership, who are considered complete know-nothing, uneducated, religiously fanatic hicks.... (in Latin America, Western Europe, Canada, Britain, can anyone help me out with places they have visited?)

This DESERVED decline in our reputation has done harm to our diplomatic efforts, our military efforts, our trade efforts, and any semblance of a coordinated international exchange on the environment. Who is more likely to put this HUGE problem arights? Obama and Biden? Or thin-lipped, red-faced McCain and (FOR THE LOVE OF MIKE) Palin.

scrubbyoak said:  "Hilarious, jack, you should be on comedy central."

There is no need for a "comedy central" with Obama runing for Prez it's a laugh a minute.

Jack I think you are even more down on Obama than I am.

mcorey.geo  I am not an McCain supporter and do not vote in your elections. And your "main reason 'for supporting Obama seems somewhat peculiar to me. But one answer in a nutshell  I'd offer is that these are dangerous times with dangerous adversaries and with explosive situations beckoning everywhere. So the issue objectively is not how America is perceived in the world--no matter how important you deem that (and I think you way overstate the problem), but is, rather, who is better to face these beckoning crises. The argument is that Obama is too unseasoned and raw and that this is not time for a rookie, a man with next to nothing in the way of foreign policy chops.

p.s and to the side: And mcorey.geo I tend to think that capitalizing words and phrases, while typographically striking, does not add anything to the substance of your comments.

blogs.tnr.com/.../his-mother-s-son.aspx

"So one of the dreams fulfilled by Obama is that he has risen neither on somebody else's shoulders nor on the gentle upward path of privilege.  I believe that this country, our country, is now in need of admirable symbols. And not particularly of children of the elites. We've already had F.D.R. and J.F.K., and going back all the way to the dawn of the Republic. And we have already had children (though not daughters) of the solid middle class. Harry S. Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, just as instances.  

 To give fullness to the paradigm and promise of an open society, we could not do better -- at least in this contest -- than to choose a brilliant and articulate, pragmatic and embracing child of a poor teen-age mother."

Palin should win because she is a mother of teen-age mother.

basman said:  "Jack I think you are even more down on Obama than I am."

I don't know how to quantify it, Itzik.

However, I am not "down on" Obama at all. At this point in his life I don't think he is ready to be President. He hasn't exactly been a brilliant legislator thus far, though he has potential.

If he decided to run say in 2012 or 2016 by which time we would know better what he is capable of, I will have no problem voting for him.

It’s not his policies I am objecting to, it's his lack of experience.

What are you talking about mcorey?  America's standing is pretty damn good right now with the UK, Germany, and France.  Oh yeah, I think countries like Georgia, Poland, and the Ukraine like us too.

I know that we've pissed off people like Iran, but I guess we can't be perfect can we?

Of course, I think McCain is working on getting Hamas and some Commie leaders like Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro to re-think their endorsements so that they can endorse McCain instead of Obama.  

jackson, it's not just his lack of experience, but his abject lack of judgment.  

Take the Georgia situation for instance.  What was The Messiah's first response?  "Both sides should exercise restraint."  Oh, hey, that's great.  Why don't you also cue up John Lennon's "Give Peace A Chance" while you're at it?  Obama, Mr. Foreign Policy, somehow missed the fact that Georgia was our friend, and, whatever may have happened before Russia invaded, Russia's rush through the Roki Tunnel and Georgia was clearly unwarranted.  Of course, this is the same guy that gave us a tire gauge for an energy policy, so I'm not sure why anyone would be too surprised at this little gem adduced by Obama.

So, the Messiah realizes that his first stab at this live foreign policy crisis was a bit off.  What's he do?  Refers the situation to the UN Security Council.  Well, now, thats' a good idea.  Let's get the Security Council to fire up Lennon's "Give Peace A Chance."  One, small problem with that, though:  Russia's on the Security Council itself, and it, like any member nation on that entity, has complete veto power on anything it does.  

Well, back to the drawing board.  And I guess the third time's the charm here.  And what's this charm of a solution he proposes?  Yes, the same thing that McCain set forth as a solution in the first place.  So, in addition to his stalwart teleprompter reading skills, Obama can add Google research to his grand repertoire of foreign policy savoir-faire.    

If I were to take Marty's question "Why Palin Should Win? seriously I would say that she should win because she is McCain's running mate. Biden, otoh, should lose because he is Obama's running mate.

It's too bad Obama coudn't be running with Palin on a change ticket against McCain and Biden on an experience ticket.

This would have made for the perfect contest: two old gizzers versus two  naifs.

desmondclee said:  "jackson, it's not just his lack of experience, but his abject lack of judgment. "

Did you mean "obvious" lack of judgment? Abject means miserable or wretched as in abject poverty, or contemptible, as in abject cowardice.

In any case, yes it's his lack of experience (and knowledge of world affairs which can be rectified with study) and not his lack of judgment which can’t be rectified that is a problem for me.

"So, in addition to his stalwart teleprompter reading skills, Obama can add Google research to his grand repertoire of foreign policy savoir-faire."

I like this Desmond, it's pretty funny.

Pretty funny, now.  If he gets elected, it won't be as humorous.  :)

Wow, desmond. The Messiah?  "abject lack of judgement"?

The election season always bring out new cockroaches from the Republican woodwork.

If you can't take the truth, you can lurk.  Otherwise, try responding to the merits of my post.  

Maybe we can banter about tips on Google searching or something like that.

By the way, scrubbyoak, you might want to take note of Obama's resume before you respond.  I've actually linked it.  You can find it at any fine office supply store, usually packaged in quantities of 500 a pop.

www.officedepot.com/.../Office-Depot-Brand-Laser-Paper-24

Desmond, press releases are not policy papers. Stop treating them as such.

desmond, fuck off. You're just a Republican propagandist. What about the fact that Republican presidents have associated with tons of Latin American dictators? Pinochet, the Argentinian junta, ever hear of them?

Those are fine for you, eh?

And shut the fuck of about the Commie dictators. I lived in a Commie country and lost family to that dictatorship. When I was in the streets and the Commie police shot at us so that many died that day,

surely Americans were of no help. The American president Mr. Bush father was too busy coddling exactly those Commies, just as that shitbag Ronald Reagan had done before him.

So, unless you have done something against Commies yourself, shut the fuck off and quit giving lessons.

rozenson, what are you talking about?  My post wasn't a press release.  It was simply a recounting of what went on with Obama and the Georgia crisis.  If you want, I can do the same for the surge.  

sleepyavl,

Tsk, tsk, tsk.  I'm sorry to hear about your family, but I'm not sure what your point about our help is about.  

Re-read my post, and get a clue,

Mkay?

Don't worry, this lesson was for free.

sleepyavl,

Tsk, tsk, tsk.  I'm sorry to hear about your family, but I'm not sure what your point about our help is about.  

Re-read my post, and get a clue,

Mkay?

Don't worry, this lesson was for free.

«"Both sides should exercise restraint."  Oh, hey, that's great..»

And it is great indeed. The situation in Georgia is not at all black and white. From what I've heard, (1). the so-called Georgian democratic leaders were responsible for shameful policies in South Ossetia (very similar to ethnic cleansing ones adopted in ex-Yoguslavia) and they are hated down there.  (2). The first act of aggression (probably inspired by a reckless American foreign policy) was Georgian.

These kinds of minority / separatist / influence areas problems in Europe are to be treated with extreme care and responsibility. Not recklessly and without restraint. Only the present amateurs at Washington (accompanied by some alarmists, and also amateurs, in Paris such as Kouchner) don't know that. Fortunately, common EU positions (very much determined by efforts in which Germany is decisive) are still determined by careful and responsible professionals...

So if Obama said that "both sides should exercise restraint" he was spot on. Even surprising me with his clairvoyance and professionalism. Which America desperately needs.

After all, 8 years ago America was respected around the world as the single super-power with a professional and very responsible foreign policy. Today, it is increasingly becoming a political light weigh that everyone knows is dominated by amateur histericals not to be taken seriously and with no effective means...

Ummmm, there's a small problem with that, luispc.  Obama figured out that that was the wrong response.  To be sure, measured responses are in order in some cases.  This wasn't one of them.  And the fact that Obama got it wrong just goes to show why he's completely unprepared to seize the reins of the commander-in-chief.

Vladimir Putin and other strongmen like him are praying that Obama gets elected.  If he does, Putin knows the can do things like taking the Ukraine with little or no opposition from Obama.  

And that's terrifying.

"If he does, Putin knows the can do things like taking the Ukraine with little or no opposition from Obama.  "

That remains to be seen.

One thing is for sure. Putin knows at this moment that there is no real opposition against his moves in Caucasus, since he knows that America is a big dog that histericaly barks but is currently unable to bite (which is in a great deal the result of a reckless foreign and military policy adopted by your beloved Republicans).

He knows, after what happened in Iraq -- and with the incredibly stupid exhaustion of political, military and economic resources there -- that he could step into Ukraine with no opposition whatsoever (since he also knows that any sain Americans wouldn't declare a nuclear war based on Ukraine)...

So desmodclee, please be aware that restauring America's position in the world after the Republicans' ravaging and amateuristic dissipation of resources and political capital will take some time, incredible resilience and enormous intelligence.

And, you know? I hope Ukraine is not going to be a victim of that amateuristic dissipation. Something that culminanted in what we are watching today. A moment in which everyone (absolutely everyone, from Putin to Ahmadinejad, from the Chinese to the Syrians) feels free to challenge America. Somehting that would be unthinkable 8 years ago...

luispc said:  "The situation in Georgia is not at all black and white. From what I've heard, (1). the so-called Georgian democratic leaders were responsible for shameful policies in South Ossetia (very similar to ethnic cleansing ones adopted in ex-Yoguslavia) and they are hated down there.  (2). The first act of aggression (probably inspired by a reckless American foreign policy) was Georgian."

If what you say is true, and it is debatable, Russia had the choice of going to the UN with evidence and ask the Security Council of which it is a member to condemn Georgia for these atrocities. The US would have been had to either endorse the claim or else show evidence why it was false.

You of all people should know that invading Georgia wasn't Russia's only alternative.

Besides the US isn't the only country which reacted negatively to Russian's invasion. The British government statements have also been very harsh.

As to the US not being respected in world affairs that doesn't seem to be the official position of GB, Germany, France, Italy and other European countries.

Many East European countries have appreciated the US response to Russia.

"So if Obama said that "both sides should exercise restraint" he was spot on."

Yes, he was.  

In fact, the last time I checked, that's pretty much the definition of a ceasefire - which was exactly what the U.S. wanted to achieve.  

If Bush, McCain and their Republican supporters have a better understanding of how power and leverage works and exercise better judgment in the use of it, they're doing a pretty poor job of demonstrating that.  To put it mildly.  

This thread sure is one tempestuous little teapot!

It appears that the arguments have ossified and the brains will soon follow.

While supporting McCain for foreign policy reasons makes a certain kind of sense, so long as one makes certain highly questionable assumptions about how best to confront our diverse foreign enemies and rivals--the petro-dictators of Russia, the commie-capitalist oligarchs of China, the petro-theocrats of Sudan, the petro-monarchs of the Middle East, the freelance terrorists of points far-flung--Sarah Palin makes that already shaky case a whole lot shakier.

And it is remarkable how little attention McCain's supporters on these boards pay to domestic policy.

desmondclee I share some of your concerns about Obama, and his inexperience stands at the top of my list. But I wonder whether when one can really infer so much from his first response to Russia going into Georgia, even though I agree that Mccain was impressive right out of the box and it took Obama three tries and three days to to finally wind up where McCain started. McCain at the time was in full campaign mode; Obama was trying on Hawaiian shirts or whatever on a well deserved vacation. So it took him a little longer to get to the right sound bite. Ultimately one wants a position based on a full analysis and these shout outs to the media off the cuff should not be much of a measure of anything: more gotcha' and glibness than substance and depth. Just sayin'.

Somewhere else I cited this post on this site . And I cite now my questions about it:

…Still on Peretz's "these people" kind of approach, I'm remembering Seymor Martin Leipset's theory on the origins of fascism. That it turned into a possibility since the status quo could use the social resentment of the lower classes and turn it into a political weapon.

I doubt that it explains all about fascism. But it surely is true that all fascist movements explored social resentment in a way very similar to the one Sarah Palin explored it.  So, again, the smart (and the right) thing to do surely is not to feed the beast, by showing any signs of elitism.

But at the same time I do understand Peretz's feeling when he says that Republicans "turned the table". This kind of protofascist technique means indeed to "turn the table", showing that one is willing to do anything. To play outside any sort of rules... .

If Democrats could find a way to explain this to ordinary Americans... That their polity is being hijacked by protofascists willing to explore the worst in them in order to defend a status quo supposedly based on "freedom" and on "national security" (but actually based on predator economic interests...).

_______________________________________________________________________________

Respectfully, there seems to be real problems with this argument. Surely it is true that all fascist

movements explored/exploited  social resentment. But the Democrats also explore /exploit social resentment. What is the  bill of particulars against Palin’s exploitation/exploration of these resentments that makes it distinguishable in principle from that of the Democrats?

And I’m not clear from Peretz’s post, or just generally in the convention, where there is a” turning of tables” marking the Republicans as proto-fascist, which is a harsh indictment indeed that one would want to be cautious in asserting.  I’d want to know the specifics, or some of them, backing up that claim. What rules and how are they being broken, I’d want to know. What constraints are the Democrats obeying that the Republicans are violating?

For part of the argument iset in these words—“That their polity is being hijacked by protofascists willing to explore the worst in them in order to defend a status quo supposedly based on "freedom" and on "national security" (but actually based on predator economic interests...), well, apart from quarreling with the premise, even, arguendo, just granting it, how are the Democrats any less committed to defending the economic status quo based on economic predation? And if not, then what exactly is is that "ordinary Americans" are to be educated about by Democrtas equally committed, presumably, to the fundamental economic status quo, regardless of differences in tinkering with marginal rate tax rates and levying other taxes and granting certain tax credits. These differences are at the margin of a shared poltical committment to the fundamentals of capitalism.

No?...

i'd love the hear the rebuttal

"And it is remarkable how little attention McCain's supporters on these boards pay to domestic policy. "

You are wrong there Nippers.

The Democrats will control congress, and McCain will not have his way ond domestic not foreign policy.

citizenghost said:

"So if Obama said that "both sides should exercise restraint" he was spot on."

Yes, he was. In fact, the last time I checked, that's pretty much the definition of a ceasefire - which was exactly what the U.S. wanted to achieve."

Ghoster, you are wrong, the US wanted to stop Russia from taking over Georgia.  

You don't call for a cease fire when one country is in the process of invading another: you call for the aggressor to cease its aggression and to withdraw.

desmond, I read your post and you're full of shit. You are the typical Republican liar who wil never address the rejoinder but will be smug. You resemble Sarah Pailn and George W. Bush - stupid people who are aggressive. In other words, the quintessence of being a true Republican - being an asshole.

I said very clearly that your fucking Republicans have supported as many dictators as have the liberals. Your Republicans are no better than liberals. But my main point, you fucker, is that you are really indecent to talk about "Commies". Republican presidents have done NOTHING for Eastern Europe under Communism. It is by knowing these presidents when we needed American help that I came to despise the - Reagan, Bush Sr.

Just like you, these airheads were full of shit, all talk, no action. In fact it is good that ypu post here - you are the very essence of Republicanism for all to see - all talk, no substance. You talk about "Commies"? Your fucking Republican presidents did NOTHING against them.

 "But it surely is true that all fascist movements explored social resentment in a way very similar to the one Sarah Palin explored it.  So, again, the smart (and the right) thing to do surely is not to feed the beast, by showing any signs of elitism."

Isn't the Communist or Socialist call on the lower classes to take over power and "get rid of the ruling class"  a form of resentment and hence fascism?

What's the difference between Lenin wanting to sweep the upper class "rabble" of the world and the Fascists call to sweep away the "cowardly bourgeoisie?"

IN any case, it is way too premature to call Governor Palin "a fascist" don't you think?

"You talk about "Commies"? Your fucking Republican presidents did NOTHING against them."

Sleepy, you seem to be in your manic phase. Take a deep breath adn slow down a bit.

My last post was cut off. I am reposting it in its entirety:

 "But it surely is true that all fascist movements explored social resentment in a way very similar to the one Sarah Palin explored it.  So, again, the smart (and the right) thing to do surely is not to feed the beast, by showing any signs of elitism."

Isn't the Communist or Socialist call on the lower classes to take over power and "get rid of the ruling class"  a form of resentment and hence fascism?

What's the difference between Lenin wanting to sweep the upper class "rabble" of the world and the Fascists call to sweep away the "cowardly bourgeoisie?"

Most modern politics is based on resentment, but not all modern politics is fascistic.

Besides, the US Constitution was designed in part to combat the politics of resentment.

You can read about it in John Adams’ “Discourses on Davila.”

Or in,

Diggins, John P. John Adams: The American Presidents Series

In any case, it is way too premature to call Governor Palin "a fascist" don't you think?

Desmond,

Arguments against Obama's experience fall short, on multiple points:

First, and I think most important, the balance between experience and judgment required to be President is far from obvious.  If you look at JFK's emergency response group at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the President was, arguably, far less experience in foreign affairs than many of his advisors, including people like Maxwell Taylor and Curtis LeMay, both of whom were 20 years his senior in terms of global military-political experience.  Yet it was Kennedy's unwillingess to follow the majority advise - which was to invade Cuba as quickly as possible - based on his judgment that the stakes where too high, and the risks too great, that probably prevented a nuclear shooting war.  One would do well to ask, when one contemplates facing a 21st century resurgent Russia, whether one would have wanted a Barack Obama in the executive role in October 1962, or a John McCain.  Remember that many of us owe the fact that we survived 1962 to having the right answer.

Secondly, I'm not sure where I see McCain's experience as being head and shoulders above Obama's on these matters.  He certainly has failed spectacularly to demonstrate that what he has learned from his experience in the Senate has made him particularly perceptive about the foreign policy challenges he US faces.  He was wrong about Iraq (parroting the discredited idea that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in or relevant to 9/11 back in 2002/3, and arguing that an even smaller commitment of troops than Rumsfeld wanted was sufficient).  In other words, he, with 20 some years of his Senate experience already under his belt, was as wrong about Iraq as was Bush and company.   On Georgia, Obama's response, after less than 36 hours reflection, was not significantly different from McCain's (aggressive diplomacy in NATA and the EU; demand for Russian withdrawal).   Consider for a moment how closely that parallels George Bush the elder's response to the invasion of Kuwait - which took a couple of days to acquire the spine that lead to a unified Western response.  GHWB was at the time a sitting president, and certainly had foreign policy experience to spare.

I for one, given the choice between McCain's experience, and tendency to shoot from the hip on the on the one hand, and Obama's relatively lighter experience, with an inclination to think things through, have no difficulty going with the latter.  If what experience has taught McCain is that to be prickly, temperamental, and quick on the draw - and I think that is his take-away, I don't want him in the hot seat, thank you.

I'm going to shock you all into next week by saying that I agree with Basman here. All these sideways, cryptic machinations to argue that Gov. Palin wants to drag us into fascism through tricking the lumpen are unnecessarily vague and really unfalsifiable. (Since the less evidence of her putschism "shows", the more it appears she's hiding her putschism-- whatever.)

No, it is sufficient merely to look at her views **as stated** to conclude that she is a moron of the first order. The denial of evolutionary science, climatic science, her lack of shame in claiming that God is leading her to make this or that political decision, her denial of mountains of social science regarding the stupidity of abstinence-only sex education (a cock that as we know came home to roost), and, last but never least with these people, her church's advocacy of "Love Wins Out", an exercise in Christian reeducation for gays in Anchorage. (Hey, if Obama's crazy church is fair game, then...)

See the thread? She represents everything that disgusts about our country. The provincialism, the dismissal of the Other, the a-scientific bumper sticker fundamentalism: "God says it. I believe it. That settles it."

luispc,

I'm not sure if I follow your point a whole lot.  If you can clarify, I'd be happy to engage in a dialogue.

basman, I hear what you're saying on Obama's Hawaiian trip.  And I'd cut him some slack for that, but that's not the only time he's done that.  The Georgia thing was illustrative of other times in which he screwed up.  That's my point.  

citizenghost said:

""So if Obama said that "both sides should exercise restraint" he was spot on."

Yes, he was.  

In fact, the last time I checked, that's pretty much the definition of a ceasefire - which was exactly what the U.S. wanted to achieve.  

If Bush, McCain and their Republican supporters have a better understanding of how power and leverage works and exercise better judgment in the use of it, they're doing a pretty poor job of demonstrating that.  To put it mildly."

No, I think you're completely off on this issue.  Yes, a ceasefire was something we wanted to achieve.  The problem with Obama's view on that was the fact that that's all he wanted to achieve.  The key aspect of any resolution of the Georgia crisis was to get Russia out of Georgia, which was something he completely missed the boat on.  

McCain got that.  And so did Biden.  Obama had to take three stabs at the solution before gettignit right.  

sleepyavl,

You really need to take your meds, dude.  Yes, Republican Presidents did "NOTHING" against Eastern block Commie dictators.  Well, I guess when the Berlin Wall came crumbling down in 1989, that wasn't the fruition of efforts by Reagan and Bush to combat the Soviet Union's tyrannical reign in that part of the world.  Naaaah.  

And I guess President Reagan's efforts in funding the Contras to overthrow Communist Daniel Ortega (who has endorsed Obama) and the Alfredo Christiani in El Salvador in the 80's to fight off the Marxist FMLN rebels is just a lie.  

Keep it up, sleepavl.  You're entertaining.  Really.

As far as I recall, Ortega and the Sandinistas overthrew a brutal gangster-style dictatorship and won the subsequent elections, which by all accounts (including those of U.S. observers) were free and fair.

sdemuth,

Your example of JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis is hardly something you want to be adducing as support for your point.  The reason why there were missiles in Cuba in the first place was because Khruschev saw a green, patsy in JFK and thought he could screw with them by putting those missiles there in the first place.  If you had someone else facing up to Nikita (e.g., FDR), those missiles will never get put there.

And I'm sorry, but if you can't see how McCain isn't head-and-shoulders above Obama, I'm not sure what to tell you.  McCain was right on Iraq, and about the surge.  As to the latter, let's go over what happened with that:

*When the surge was first implemented, Obama not only claimed it wouldn't work, but that would actually increase sectarian violence in Iraq.  Well, he was wrong on both points, especially the latter.  Dead wrong.

*After Obama came back from his trip to Europe, Katie Couric asked him whether he thought the surge actually led to increased stability in Iraq.  He answered that he didn't know.  Hello?

*Then, he was asked whether if he knew then what he knew now about the surge, he would have voted for it.  In a response that looked like it came from a Saturday Night Live script, he said 'no.'  Huh?!  If he had some wherewithal about him, he would've answered 'yes,' but explained that he voted 'no' back then because he was worried that committing more troops and money to a losing situation would only make things worse.  The fact that he couldn't articulate that type of answer is not only comical, but troubling for someone who's seeking the position as Commander-in-Chief.

*It doesn't end there.  A few weeks ago, Obama was on Meet The Press with Tom Brokaw.  Brokaw reads off to Obama an editorial from USA Today.  That editorial asked what type of judgment Obama had when he continued to deny that the surge actually worked.  When asked that question, Obama looked FLOORED.  No teleprompters, no advisors, no nothing other than what he had above his shoulders to answer that question.  What was his answer?  "Well, Tom, I think the surge exceeded anyone's wildest expectations, even Bush's and Cheney's."  The only thing that Brokaw was missing on that program was a laugh track.

And what can one conclude about Obama's judgment, at least on Iraq, when he took Joe Biden as his running mate?  Keep in mind that Iraq is the issue that his whole campaign revolves around.  Yet, Biden was someone who voted for the Iraq war in the first place.  He also, when questioned last year by Tim Russert on the Meet The Press about his reliance on the WMDs in Iraq, continued to defend his view that there was enough out there to determine that Saddam did in fact have them.   Among other things, he explained that a lot of the WMD evidence was catalogued not by the US, but the UN itself.   In fact, Biden went out of his way to defend Cheney by asserting that the WMD thing was "not just some Cheney pipe dream."

So, the fact that there is a great gap in foreign policy/national security competence between Obama and McCain is clear.   And that's not just my opinion, but the overwhelming majority of the American public's as well.  

"See the thread? She represents everything that disgusts about our country. The provincialism, the dismissal of the Other, the a-scientific bumper sticker fundamentalism: "God says it. I believe it. That settles it.""

I have been puzzling over my own irrationally negative response to Palin.  I think this nails it.

I think it also give insight as to why arguments about Obama's inexperience are not comparable to arguments about Palin's (other than, of course, the fact that he's a presidential candidate, and she's a vice-presidential candidate, and the latter post much less a gamble than the former in terms of having the wrong person in the seat): Everything in my experience tells me that judgment, knowledge and broad exposure to the world are the equal or better of experience, per se, any day.  Palin's provincialism, and dogmatic assertions of simplistic answers to questions that are complex, technically nuanced, and widely studied reveal an utter lack of the type of judgment, knowledge and broad minded appreciation of the world that we ought to value.  She is an insult to reason, something one cannot say about Obama, or any of the other candidates, excepting perhaps Kucinich.

sdemuth said: "Desmond, Arguments against Obama's experience fall short, on multiple points:

First, and I think most important, the balance between experience and judgment required to be President is far from obvious.  If you look at JFK's emergency response group at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the President was, arguably, far less experience in foreign affairs than many of his advisors,..."

JFK served bravely in WW2, he as well travelled including taking trips to Israel before and after the Jewish States became independent. As a Congressmen and Senator he was exposed to many foreign policy issues.

Moreover, he came from a political family and grew up thinking about these issues.

To compare JFK to Obama is like comparing Einstein to a Jr. High science instructor.

ironyroad said:  "As far as I recall, Ortega and the Sandinistas overthrew a brutal gangster-style dictatorship and won the subsequent elections, which by all accounts (including those of U.S. observers) were free and fair."

This is only half the story.

You need to read the last few chapters of Radosh' memoir "Comies" to get a fuller picture of the Ortega phenomenon.

Radish, btw, was a long time leading leftist who broke with the left over this issue.

mcorey,

"No, it is sufficient merely to look at her views **as stated** to conclude that she is a moron of the first order. The denial of evolutionary science, climatic science, her lack of shame in claiming that God is leading her to make this or that political decision, her denial of mountains of social science regarding the stupidity of abstinence-only sex education (a cock that as we know came home to roost), and, last but never least with these people, her church's advocacy of "Love Wins Out", an exercise in Christian reeducation for gays in Anchorage. (Hey, if Obama's crazy church is fair game, then...)"

Evolutionary science:  Palin isn't denying evolution, she's just saying that intelligent design should be taught alongside (I just made that word up) evolution.  What's so bad about that?  

God leading her to make decisions:  this is something that's uttered in churches -- including Obama's old church -- across the country thousands of times every week.  It's simply another way of saying "It's God's plan," and not something where she's actually saying that God is commanding her to do something.  

Abstinence:  keep in mind that this was her view for the state of Alaska.  This isn't necessarily her view for other states.  In fact, most hard-core Republicans like her will tell you that this should be an issue decided by the states and local communities that have to deal with the issue.  

Climate change:  jeez, why is that a majority of people in the UK don't believe in man-made global warming (as opposed to the issue of whether the globe is in fact warming)?  Why is that some hard-core lefties like Alexander Cockburn mock this same idea?  This is hardly an issue where Republicans and conservatives think one thing (since McCain actually is a vocal proponent of man-made global warming) and Democrats and liberals think the opposite.

And yes, if Obama's church if fair game, so it Palin's.  But just remember that Obama's the top of the ticket whereas Palin is not.  And one other thing:  while you may not agree with what Palin says and does in her church, what they should keep in mind is this:  what the Dems think is objectionable is actually something that will play awfully well with swing voters in 'purple states' like Virginia and North Carolina.  So, keep looping that stuff, and adding some negative bent to it, and you'll see that backfire.  

Still, it's an important half.

ironyroad,

There's no question that the Sandinistas lead a popular movement to overthrow the BS government lead by the Somozas.  The rub here isn't what happened when they took power, but what happened afterwards.  What was once a movement that pushed for change on behalf of all the people became the same, if not worse, authoritarian dictatorship that they ousted.  (Does this change business ring a bell?)  Just like the Shining Path in Peru, they ended betraying -- and killing thousands of -- those they supposedly were fighting for.  

sdemuth,

I wasn't able to follow you post a whole lot.  Like I said before, the bumper stick you're referring to is something a whole lot of independent voters in swing states believe.  So, keep pounding on that, and you'll see a landslide loss for Obama come November.

By the way, anyone watch Obama's interview with George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" today?  He asked Obama about the surge and, to put it simply and mildly, Obama looked, again, like a mumbling, bumbling, stumbling fool.

I almost feel sorry for him.

Desmond,

I know the story of Kruschev and Kennedy in Geneva, and I don't doubt it led Kruschev to think he could get by with more than he might otherwise have tried.   That proves that Kruschev misread Kennedy, and concluded wrongly that the US could therefore be pushed around. So, perhaps, and I do mean perhaps,  had Kennedy been more assertive, there would have been no Cuban missile crisis, but that's a hard argument to carry with certainty.  The Soviets pushed hard against the US many times between 1944 (when your counter-example, FDR, was hardly standing up to Josepth Stalin at Yalta) and the fall of the Soviet Union.  They pushed Truman, Eisenhower (hardly the poster child for lack of experience), Kennedy and the rest.

What is certain is that the experienced people in the room in 1962  ... Maxwell Taylor, Lemay, Dean Acheson, all advocated immediate military retaliation, which was almost certainly the wrong response.  Would you really rather Lemay had been in charge?  Acheson?

Your anecdotes about Obama tell a nice story.  Care to to line them up with McCain needing Leibermann to remind him who are the Sunnis and who are the Shia, or claiming that 100,000 troops would be sufficient in Iraq, or claiming 2 years ago that the surge was a good idea, but not nearly enough (he wanted to boost US presense by 3 times what the administration was proposing)?  How about McCain claiming "there are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today" when no one in the country thought that even remotely likely?  One could put together a storyline equally damning about McCain, as you have about Obama, his experience notwithstanding.

As for who the public thinks is better suited to lead - guess we'll know in 2 months.  I'm not taking bets yet, personally.

<<

\what the Dems think is objectionable is actually something that will play awfully well with swing voters in 'purple states' like Virginia and North Carolina.

>>

Classic Conservative political correctness in action. Anti-white talk down at Trinity? Chase Minister up the hillside with torches blazing. Anti-gay ACTION at Palin's church (capitalization intended)? Hey, it's a mere sop to those purple states we're supposed to have so much respect for.

As per usual, everyone gets free license to shit on us.

sdemuth, you make a fair point about JFK, but I think what I've stated is the conventional wisdom about why someone with little experience isn't as good a bet with someone else who's got more.  Another point is that JFK and Obama differed on other thing:  toughness.  Yes, JFK, after getting played by Khruschev, stood up to him.  My fear is that, like JFK, Obama will be taken by Putin, but, unlike JFK, when push comes to shove, Obama will fold.

As for my anecdotes, they aren't anecdootes or a story, they're, unfortunately, the truth.  Keep in mind that everyone gaffes during a campaign.  The key is how many times the gaffes are made and the nature of the gaffes.  While McCain did screw up the Shia and Sunni thing, do you doubt he knows the difference or that he's got enough and more foreign policy experience than Obama does?  

A good analogue is Obama's gaffe on the 57 states thing.  That, on its face, is stupid.  But do I think that Obama doesn't know there are only 50 states?  Of course not.  But if you want to play the Shia/Sunni thing or anything like that, I can put at issue the 57 state thing.  And, unlike the Muslim religious difference that McCain erred on (something that comparably very few Americans know about), Obama's error on the 57 state thing is something every grade schooler knows.

And no bets?

Not even a case of beer?  ;)

mcorey, I'm just stating facts.  It's kind of like defending a sexual harassment case.  If you're the defense lawyer, even if you think the plaintiff is lying through her teeth, you've got to go easy on her before a jury.  Otherwise, you risk making her look more like a victim, and damage your case all that much more even if you're right.

Desmond,

The bumper sticker I am referring to?  Not sure I understand.  I value reason, evidence and judgment as inputs to decision making.  Palin seems, as nearly as I can tell, to value received dogma and instinct.  So she concludes that abstinence only sex education is the way to go, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.  She has doubts about anthropogenic climate change, the best judgment of science be damned.  She thinks evolution and creationism ought to be given the same legitimacy as science by public schools, even though one is not science in any sense of the word.

I certainly know there are many people in this country who agree with her - I live in the rural midwest, and have some of them for my neighbors.  The fact they are likable, hardworking, and responsible citizens who happen to believe things that are absurd when submitted to the court of reason and evidence is just one of those things I have to live with.  But I'm not going to elevate to a virtue.

Well, I don't think she masquerades idealism with rationale and pragmatism.  I think her record in Alaska (e.g., taking on Ted Stevens' son) shows why that's so.

Talking about bad guys, the Dallas Cowboys are playing right now.

desmondclee:  ". . . became the same, if not worse, authoritarian dictatorship that they ousted."

It wasn't a frigging dictatorship, for pete's sake.  The 1984 elections -- right in the middle of the Contra war -- we regarded by all observers as free and fair.

Are you talking about the election of Somoza?  If so, you can have an election, even a fair one, an still have an authoritarian dictatorship.  Hamas is a good example.  They got elected fair and square, and they're terrorists.

Keep up, man.  Are you a Cowboys fan or something?

"Evolutionary science:  Palin isn't denying evolution, she's just saying that intelligent design should be taught alongside (I just made that word up) evolution.  What's so bad about that? "

I don't know what Palin's position is on this (didn't she say that the government shouldn't tell schools what to teach?) issue, but yes there is something wrong with teaching "intelligent design" along side evolutionary biology.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory since it deals with first principles and it doesn't belong in a science curriculum.

You can of course teach it in a religion curriculum.

 ironyroad said:

"It wasn't a frigging dictatorship, for pete's sake.  The 1984 elections -- right in the middle of the Contra war -- we regarded by all observers as free and fair."

Where they free and fair, Irony.

You seem to be dodging the hard questions.

In any case, by 1989 when new elections where held which were monitored by international community the Sandinistas were defeated and defeated by a wide margin. This defeat shocked the American left which supported the Daniel Ortega regime.

They never got over it.

Intelligent design is not, per se, religious.  Of course, how many religion classes are taught on the post-secondary level?  If that can be taught there, why not before?

JD:  There was no suggestion -- to the best of my knowledge -- by anyone who was on the ground that the 1984 elections were tainted in any way (in contrast to, say, Florida in 2000).  People I knew who were in Nicaragua were not in fact surprised by the 1989 resusts.  The Sandinistas weren't perfect, but they managed to topple a savage dictator and to improve the quality of life (health, education, longevity) in the country.  They also held three elections in non-ideal circumstances, and the first one reflected the massive gratitude that Somoza had been removed.  However, by 1989 the mix of economic frustration, exhaustion from the war, and general dislike of the Sandinista party's top-down style led to the defeat.

I'm not ignoring anything.  All questions welcome.

desmondclee:  if you are going to enter an argument, at least get your basic historical chronology right first.

Desmond,

"While McCain did screw up the Shia and Sunni thing, do you doubt he knows the difference or that he's got enough and more foreign policy experience than Obama does?"

I don't doubt that McCain knows at some level the difference between Sunni and Shia, but I do doubt that he knows why the difference matters, and I think that makes his mistakes indicative of a rather thoughtless approach to foreign policy.

I certainly don't deny that he has more experience than Obama.  That's a matter of record.  I doubt that the experience, taken with his approach to judgment (which I take to be rather more "shoot from the hip" than "think it through," and to be driven by considerations of honor and integrity taken to an extreme that makes them more a fetish than a virtue, with a dollop of temper thrown in), makes him a better foreign policy bet than Obama.

This is my main point about experience - it simply is not in and of  itself determinative.  I'd prefer McCain's experience with Obama's judgment and politics, if I could have them, but I can't.

I don't, BTW, buy this continual slander on Obama's need for a teleprompter.  I've heard him speak extemporaneously, and I know for a fact that he can answer questions and think on his feet.

But I don't think he's perfect.  I share doubts, though not as deep as yours, about his toughness.  I dislike his pandering on a number of issues, mostly domestic.  But in the context of an Obama-Biden administration, with competent NSC and cabinet, I don't fear for the country nearly as much I will if McCain is elected.

"Intelligent design is not a scientific theory since it deals with first principles and it doesn't belong in a science curriculum."

Precisely.

"Intelligent design is not, per se, religious."

Intelligent design as an explanation for life on earth was devised by and is promoted almost entirely by, people  with a religious ax to grind, to answer a religious objection to theories of evolution.  You cannot discuss ID honestly without discussing religion.

sdemuth,

Come on, man.  McCain does know the difference and why it matters.  As for Obama's judgment, don't kid yourself.  He's got some serious shortcomings on judgment.  Take Iraq.  If it were up to him, that place would be the subject of some ethnic cleansing right now.  If Obama was making a decision on Georgia, Russia would be occupying it.  

Let's not kid ourselves on Obama's judgment.  He doesn't have much of a record on it, and the little there is of it, is absolutely terrifying.  

As for this teleprompter business, yes, Obama does well at times without one.  But there are way too many times he just simply screws the pooch when he doesn't have one.  And that's too troubling for my tastes.

ironyroad, I know exactly the history of what's going on.  I'd suggest you re-examine some of conclusions you draw and rationale you employ.  

sdemuth,

Like I said, intelligent design is not per se religious.  And if that's such a problem with you, why not ban all religious instruction in public universities?  

ironyroad said:  “JD:  There was no suggestion -- to the best of my knowledge -- by anyone who was on the ground that the 1984 elections were tainted in any way (in contrast to, say, Florida in 2000).  People I knew who were in Nicaragua were not in fact surprised by the 1989 resusts.  The Sandinistas weren't perfect, but they managed to topple a savage dictator and to improve the quality of life (health, education, longevity) in the country.”

Your comments cover up a lot of ugly realities. (Again read Radosh’ book he was there…)

Firstly the fact that one gang disposes of a worse gang doesn’t give that gang the right to mistreat the people for the sake of “a just cause.” The Sandinistas abused their power almost from the start which is why so many people flocked to the contras.

Secondly, the 1989 results came as a complete shock to everyone. Radosh who was there said that the Sandinistas couldn’t believe the results. All the previous polls had shown a government victory. Apparently people lied to the pollsters telling them that they were going to vote for the Sandinistas. (In a tyrannical State people can’t really tell how information gathered privately will be used.)

Finally, if the Sandinistas had offered the people good, or even fair government, do you think they would have voted against them?

sdemuth,

You can discuss and teach ID without reference to religion.  The question is whether, as a practical matter, you can.  

My question again is whether we should rid post-secondary school curiculla of all religious instruction?  

"Finally, if the Sandinistas had offered the people good, or even fair government, do you think they would have voted against them?"

Uh . . . yes.  Firstly, they voted FOR them twice, so the "mistreatment" was clearly balanced out by other things.  Secondly, governments get kicked out of office all the time, and often in less fraught circumstances than Nicaragua in the 1980s -- the Sandinistas may have been shocked at the result (not the only government to have that experience), but from my limited knowledge people on the ground (foreigners, admittedly, but still) thought that the economic frustration was going to affect the election.  It did.  Thirdly, I already said the Sandinistas weren't perfect, but they made a reasonable attempt to correct the almost surreal inequalities and brutalities of the Somoza decades -- the Nicaraguan state of affairs regarding health, basic education, and even a general sense of civil rights, was a lot better in 1989 than it had been in 1979.  And any fair observer will give the Sandinistas some credit for that.

Desmond,

"You can discuss and teach ID without reference to religion.  The question is whether, as a practical matter, you can.  "

Yes.  You can also teach the history of the Civil War as a purely military history too, but it doesn't make a lot of sense without the political and sociological context.  Ditto ID and religion.  Where things come from matter in any honest evaluation or teaching of them.

"My question again is whether we should rid post-secondary school curiculla of all religious instruction? "

I have a very non-"liberal secular humanist" answer to that.  Absolutely not.  In my opinion, we ought to RESERVE a period in each school day or week specifically for creed appropriate religious education, and invite the clergy or laity of the faiths to teach it.  Those without creed can get a secular humanist hour, or whatever.  Religion is a legitimate part of culture, and it deserves to be treated as such.  By the time young people are old enough to understand evolution and religious doctrine, they are old enough to start sorting out the fact that different elements of society teach and believe and different approaches to the world.  Give them the tools, and they'll be fine.

Just don't give me any nonsense about "teaching the controversy" in biology class.   There is no controversy in biology over whether the basic theory of evolution is fundamentally correct, any more than there is controversy in the Catholic Church over whether Jesus is the Son of God.

Really, Palin in a Republican ergo Republicans like her.  In this day and age how could it be otherwise?  In fact, Palin has enough requisite sanctimony to cause most conservatives to love her.

This truly amuses me more than I can fathom.

sdemuth is absolutely correct that "intelligent design"  does not belong in biology class.  It is a religious doctrine pure and simple.   Conservatives should not embarrass the cause by pretending otherwise.

I like sdemuth's idea of allowing voluntary classes in religion in school  The problem might be maintaining quality control  What if preachers of racial hatred like the Rev. Wright demand to be included?

Sarah Palin quit the Pentecostal Church and joined a non-denominational church.

elections.foxnews.com/.../palins-pentecostal-church-membership-questioned

She doesn't advocate abstinence only sex education.

www.latimes.com/.../la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

" yes, she apparently believes in some variant of Intelligent Design

" no, she didn’t try to force the schools to teach it; she said if someone brought it up, it was an appropriate subject for debate.

explorations.chasrmartin.com/.../palin-rumors

On the Alaska scale she leans to the left in matters of religion :-).

It's fine to disagree with some of Sarah Palin's positions.  I do.  But let's try to find out  what her positions are before condemning them.

"Really, Palin in a Republican ergo Republicans like her."

A lot of Republicans in Alaska hate her, especially those she has driven from office by exposing their corruption.

"...and even a general sense of civil rights, was a lot better in 1989 than it had been in 1979.  And any fair observer will give the Sandinistas some credit for that."  Irony

This is debatable at best since non-Somoza opponents of the Sandinista regime were not treated fairly at all.

The Sandinistas were totalitarian Marxists.   Large numbers of peasants who originally supported them found that out the hard way and joined the Contras, even though the Contras had some unsavory characters (as well as some good people like ex-Sandinista Commandante Zero) among their leaders.

I already said, twice, that the Nicaraguan government and the democratic process weren't perfect by any means.  However, the country had had more or less zero democratic process until Somoza was removed, and in that comparison they did astonishingly well.  There was little of the class warfare and massive state control of the Cuban model, and many Sandinistas had no desire to become a Soviet ally.  In the larger framework of things, it's difficult to see who might have done as well in those years as the Sandinistas (who in many respects had a nationalist as much as a socialist agenda).

For an assessment of the peculiar mixture of religious, intellectual, and political elements in the mix, may I recommend Conor Cruise O'Brien's great 1986 essay "God and Man in Nicaragua"?

Ironyroad,

I'll wager that Conor Cruise O'Brien has changed his mind since then.  He has become a conservative, and even joined a Unionist Party.  It's never too late to learn.

In the eighties I believed as you do.  I, like most liberals, was duped.  Naive liberals have been playing the dupe  since 1917.   The blood of over one hundred million innocent people murdered by Communist regimes is on their hands.  As a former leftist radical I share in some of that responsibility and will have to carry the shame of it with me to the grave.

Read what Paul Berman, a pro-democracy liberal (there are a few), has to say on the subject of the Sandinistas.  Paul's honesty on the subject got him purged from Mother Jones magazine.

ironyroad said:  "I already said, twice, that the Nicaraguan government and the democratic process weren't perfect by any means.  However, the country had had more or less zero democratic process until Somoza was removed, and in that comparison they did astonishingly well. "

And I already said that replacing one group of gangnsters by another is not much of an advance.

Yes, the Sandinistas initiated some reforms. The literacy was a great success, but then they also were responsible for massive civil rights abuses not that disimilar from those in Argentina:

Even the wikipedia article which is supportive of Sandinista claims talks about these abuses:

en.wikipedia.org/.../Sandinistas

"TIME magazine in 1983 published allegations of human rights violations in an article which stated that "According to Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights, the regime detains several hundred people a month; about half of them are eventually released, but the rest simply disappear." TIME also interviewed a former deputy chief of Nicaraguan military counterintelligence, who stated that he had fled Nicaragua after being ordered to eliminate 800 Miskito prisoners and make it look like as if they had died in combat.[66] Another article described Sandinista neighbourhood "Defense Committees", modeled on similar Cuban Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, which according to critics were used unleash mobs on anyone who is labeled a counterrevolutionary. Nicaragua's only opposition newspaper, La Prensa, was subject to strict censorship. That newspaper's editors are forbidden to print anything negative about the Sandinistas either at home or abroad.[10]"

If this is an advance over the Somoza regime to some extent it is, it isn't much of an advance.