Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[jim]

Seriously though, who gives a [expletive] who the rest of the world wants for US president?

I do, and everyone should. Or more accurately, we should want a president to work WITH our allies around the world.

America doesn't require the leader that somebody from somewhere else wants. Why would those people know what Obama or McCain offers for cooperation with their nation? Perhaps instead of electing a president we should just build a computer with a program that just poles the entire world and bases decisions off of that?

And I think the number one issue the president’s going to have to deal with is the economy. That’s what the American people are worried about. And, frankly, it’s not just an American problem, it’s an international problem. We can see how all of these economies are now linked in this globalized system. And I think that’ll be number one. The president will also have to make decisions quickly as to how to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. And also I think the president has to reach out to the world and show that there is a new president, a new administration that is looking forward to working with our friends and allies. And in my judgment, also willing to talk to people who we have not been willing to talk to before. Because this is a time for outreach.

I think they believe, like I believe, that Obama will reach out more than McCain. McCain was a strong supporter of the invasion in Iraq when the rest of the world told us to not rush in so fast, that they hadn't found any WMD's and weren't finished looking.

So it's not that they want Obama so much, it's just that his message is resonating with them and I think it's important as well.

edit - I think from now on I'm just going to answer by quoting Powell. The man said it all.

[cards2468]

Seriously though, who gives a [expletive] who the rest of the world wants for US president?

I do, and everyone should. Or more accurately, we should want a president to work WITH our allies around the world.

America doesn't require the leader that somebody from somewhere else wants. Why would those people know what Obama or McCain offers for cooperation with their nation? Perhaps instead of electing a president we should just build a computer with a program that just poles the entire world and bases decisions off of that?

More than any time in our nation's short history, the hardass "we don't need anyone else, we'll go it alone" philosophy has proven to be highly ineffective. Even if we decided to be a completely isolationist state, I don't think we could be completely independent.

Don't twist my words around. I'm not saying we don't need anybody else, I'm saying it's OUR decision to choose who leads us. Sure you want it to be known who the world wants for president, but how about when the Taliban stated that John Kerry should be president? All I'm saying is nobody knows OUR problems and OUR concerns more than US. By no means does that mean we need to be isolated, it just means the rest of the world just needs to deal with it and be willing to work with whomever we select.

[jim]

Seriously though, who gives a [expletive] who the rest of the world wants for US president?

I do, and everyone should. Or more accurately, we should want a president to work WITH our allies around the world.

America doesn't require the leader that somebody from somewhere else wants. Why would those people know what Obama or McCain offers for cooperation with their nation? Perhaps instead of electing a president we should just build a computer with a program that just poles the entire world and bases decisions off of that?

More than any time in our nation's short history, the hardass "we don't need anyone else, we'll go it alone" philosophy has proven to be highly ineffective. Even if we decided to be a completely isolationist state, I don't think we could be completely independent.

Don't twist my words around. I'm not saying we don't need anybody else, I'm saying it's OUR decision to choose who leads us. Sure you want it to be known who the world wants for president, but how about when the Taliban stated that John Kerry should be president? All I'm saying is nobody knows OUR problems and OUR concerns more than US. By no means does that mean we need to be isolated, it just means the rest of the world just needs to deal with it and be willing to work with whomever we select.

Read my post above and see if that doesn't make more sense to you.

[cards2468]

Read my post above and see if that doesn't make more sense to you.

I see where you're coming from, but I stand by my statement. There's no reason to assume we can't trust ourselves anymore and must rely on the rest of the world to tell us what to do.

[planet planet]

Read my post above and see if that doesn't make more sense to you.

I see where you're coming from, but I stand by my statement. There's no reason to assume we can't trust ourselves anymore and must rely on the rest of the world to tell us what to do.

The world isn't telling us what to do and it shouldn't be the deciding factor, but in today's world, shouldn't it matter?

[Freed Roger]

Then you have Iraq. Obama was one of the few who was right about not going into Iraq. Okay, so it was more than a few, but there were plenty of Democrats who were for it. Obviously going there was wrong, but the surge has worked, and I think he'll pull the troops too soon. I think McCain will get them out as quickly as he sees fit, but I believe that Obama would make things worse...if that's possible.

BW just to pick on this aspect of your well-reasoned post today.

IMO - The Iraq War decision was the biggest acid test we have on comparing these two for presidents. Most people don't like to think about Iraq anymore, because its a dirty chapter in our history and so many of us were duped. This all involves admitting mistakes and its just something we Americans don't care to do.

McCain was wrong about Iraq, and by all accounts Obama was right (granted- he wasn't in position to vote).

There is a lot of silence about Iraq from both campaigns -Sort of insulting to our troops (and families of) there now. Its still a ticking time bomb. To keep the peace, we have 150,000 troops there, AND we are paying off the insurgents not to fight us.

As for the success of the Surge. Its a band-aid solution. The success had as much to do with payola to Al-Sadr, assorted mullahs, and underlings (in some reports we spend $300,000,000 per month paying them not to fight).

This factor, plus the additional troops, plus the defacto segregation and migration of ethnic groups in Iraq, have led to the "success" of the surge.

"Success" is in quotations because we know once we stop paying off people, and we eventually move troops out of Iraq then chaos will ensue. It has to happen - but GWB is just riding out his term and not dealing with the problem. At least if Obama wins and this occurs under his administration, which seems inevitable, then right-wing pundits can enjoy blaming Obama for the failure.

In my view, Iraq was a hellhole before we went, is a hellhole while we are there, and will be a hellhole when we leave. Its a no-win situation. So why stay in this no-win situation? Our troops are heros just the same.

By the way - McCain says he knows how to get Bin Laden. That bugs me -so why doesn't he share this with people now. Is he holding out until he becomes president? What if he McCain loses, does he take his strategy with him? Country first my friend.

[jim]

Read my post above and see if that doesn't make more sense to you.

I see where you're coming from, but I stand by my statement. There's no reason to assume we can't trust ourselves anymore and must rely on the rest of the world to tell us what to do.

I didn't mean to come across as saying that someone else should be picking our president by any stretch. I'm just saying that some outreach right now is good, and imo Obama is a better choice than McCain. I wouldn't let it determine my vote, just one of many things that make me more comfortable with Obama over McCain.

[cards2468]

Read my post above and see if that doesn't make more sense to you.

I see where you're coming from, but I stand by my statement. There's no reason to assume we can't trust ourselves anymore and must rely on the rest of the world to tell us what to do.

The world isn't telling us what to do and it shouldn't be the deciding factor, but in today's world, shouldn't it matter?

I don't think it should. If you want to point out particular world groups that have credibility, that would matter, but you should know the world consists of many many cultures, and each culture has different priorities and concerns. I have a hard time believing the world as a whole has very good insight as to what each candidate has to offer and I seriously doubt any of them care the slightest bit what effect the next president will have on Americans.

[Richie Allen]

I don't think anyone here is making up their mind who to vote for based on what other countries think. But it's just more support for what a lot of us already see. The distinction between the two candidates seems obvious to some of us and the rest of the world must see it too. And perhaps I'm naive but I don't think the rest of the world is picking the leader they'd like to see take office based on who they could most likely exploit to their advantage.

[jim]

I don't think anyone here is making up their mind who to vote for based on what other countries think. But it's just more support for what a lot of us already see. The distinction between the two candidates seems obvious to some of us and the rest of the world must see it too. And perhaps I'm naive but I don't think the rest of the world is picking the leader they'd like to see take office based on who they could most likely exploit to their advantage.

That's it. I don't care what they think about who gets in, but I do care about how our President works with others. But his approval outside of this country is a byproduct of his actions on the campaign trail to convince me and other Americans that he will work with others.