Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The rap on Barack Obama, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been that he is a softheaded idealist who thinks that he can charm America's enemies. John McCain and his campaign, conservative columnists and right-wing bloggers all paint a picture of a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world's dangers. Even President Bush stepped into the fray earlier this year to condemn the Illinois senator's willingness to meet with tyrants as naive. Some commentators have acted as if Obama, touring the Middle East and Europe this week on his first trip abroad since effectively wrapping up the nomination, is in for a rude awakening.
These critiques, however, are off the mark. Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.
... It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.
I looked it over, per your request. My concern is this: If The Magic Negro can accomplish all his ideologies, what will happen when the aggressors see him for what he really is (in my mind), an appeaser, a placater, a front, a "paper tiger," an enabler? As you wrote elsewhere about a certain book we (you and I) discussed, it could be horrible.
I looked it over, per your request. My concern is this: If The Magic Negro can accomplish all his ideologies, what will happen when the aggressors see him for what he really is (in my mind), an appeaser, a placater, a front, a "paper tiger," an enabler? As you wrote elsewhere about a certain book we (you and I) discussed, it could be horrible.
Well, the purpose of the editorial is to point out that Obama is not the naive idealist the RW tries to lead us to believe, and that his approach to foreign policy problems is actually more practical and conservative than McCain's and the Republicans'. Besides that, you're asking that the article - and I - refute your opinion and (wishful) speculation.
Well, the purpose of the editorial is to point out that Obama is not the naive idealist the RW tries to lead us to believe. Besides that, you're asking that the article - and I - refute your opinion.
What does this mean? Nope never mind.
Have a good day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.