M/tch is nothing if not consistent.
Whereas you, apostropher, claimed over there that you didn't have time to read the speech at work.
Doesn't your boss read Unfogged too?
Ooo, baby! I still wouldn't be heartbroken regardless of who wins the primary, but right now Edwards has me.
I haven't read it yet, just the first several paragraphs. Let me know if it gets better.
We need to reengage the world with the full weight of our moral leadership. [...]
This made me sit up. It is the claim to moral leadership that causes all the misunderstandings in the first place. Democracy can be lethal when forced. Ask a Bosnian. I am unfortunatley old enough to begin to see that there is a sub-text, irrespective of the party colours being flown behind the speaker.
Seems like a couple of times a week my wife and I have the same conversation, and trade the same realization: the person who has done the most to deserve the nomination is not necessarily the person who will or should get it.
I will be depressed if Hilary Clinton gets the nomination.
I do like Edwards a lot, but I have a nagging doubt. paperwight wrote a post ("Profiles in Courage") in which he pointed out that John Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002, never spoke up and still voted for the war. He's no Bob Graham. (I don't think Graham's planning a run, Jackmormon.)
I was talking to John about this, and he likes the idea of an Obama/ Clinton ticket. He said that he found Edwards too calculating. He thought that he might be using his wife's cancer for sympathy points. I don't buy it, but I thought that it was weird coming from a doctor. John said, "Not that Hilary Clinton isn't calculating..." I don't quite understand why he feels this way, but I would like to counteract it.
What are y'all's thoughts on this?
[Kerry grew] even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else--that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before--and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.
That's an excellent speech. OTOH John Edwards made a ton of money assessing audiences and crafting his words to reach them. That's a very useful skill to have, but I'm not sure this does a lot to convince me that he'll make better judgments the next time the country is pissed off and braying for blood.
I was talking to an Obama fan over the weekend who said the same thing about Edwards -- calculating. I don't understand that as an objection at all; how does anyone get in position to run for the Presidency without being calculating? (Or the namesake of a recent president, but that's a fluke.)
But clearly that's a perception that's out there. On Edwards' pre-war votes, I've given him a pass as a domestic policy focused guy who got snookered. Given that he's saying the right things now, I'm not holding it against him. (I would be, if I had lots of other options to choose from, but I'm not.)
10: Given that (as the linked article described) Edawrds had told the story publicly before, I'm happy with calling it bullshit.
10: My thoughts are that I don't trust Bob Shrum or his account, and the linked article gives several good reasons why. The linked article also addresses comment 9.
Shrum says that, in the end, Kerry "wished that he'd never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut" and selected Dick Gephardt.
God, do you suppose that's really what Kerry's gut told him to do?
Kerry's gut has an aversion to eyebrows.
Well, if he *had* selected Gephardt, we could have had dueling lesbian-VP-daughters, which would have been cool.
John Kerry's gut: even dumber than John Kerry.
I was under the impression Gephardt has eyebrows, they're just tow-colored.
16: Most guts don't really thrive when fed eyebrows.
I'll believe it when they develop the instruments capable of detecting them.
I should pull my engineers off that treadmill forces project and get them started on this?
the instruments capable of detecting them
I think you can just take their word on their lesbianism.
Like Apo said, it's Bob Shrum we're talking about here. I guarantee this book is "I'm 0-8, And It's Everyone's Fault But Mine."
23: Unless you're claiming that Gephardt's invisible eyebrows are lesbians. In which case, I'd want proof, too.
On Edwards' pre-war votes, I've given him a pass as a domestic policy focused guy who got snookered.
You've stated, in a nutshell, my misgivings about Edwards. Great speaker, all-around great guy, but at heart he's a domestic policy guy. And right now, more than anything, we need someone to clean up the god-awful foreign policy mess that the current administration has created.
If I can figure out the best person for that job, that's who I'll be supporting. Now if I can just figure out how to figure that out....
Now if I can just figure out how to figure that out....
Good old-fashioned parochialism works fine for those of us from Hawaii or the Carolinas. The Arkansas, New York, and Illinois contingents may have it a little tougher.
26: I totally agree, but who among the current crop of candidates is better? Clinton?? I really have nothing to go on but their words, and Edwards' words are consistently the best. (By a significant margin.)
Is there some big obvious knock on Richardson at this point? Aside from his generally low profile and name recognition problems?
28 should for clarity say "Edwards' words about foreign policy".
Is there some big obvious problem with drunk-driving at this point? Aside from the risk of injuring people and going to jail?
When the Dem hopefuls last spoke in Richmond, I thought Edwards and Sharpton did a tremendous job in their speeches and in working the crowd. They were impressive in those areas. Lots of personal charisma in short interactions.
I want to like Edwards. I think he's extremely talented, smart, and ambitious. But so is Mitt Romney. And I worry at times that Edwards seems to have a Romneyesque capacity for aligning his political beliefs with the prevailing winds.
Edwards seems to have staked his candidacy on the calculation that telling the truth will--in these strange political times--be a winning strategy. I'm glad he's taken such a clear and strong stand today, but I can't be sure if it signifies a new and lasting courage, or just a different set of calculations.
Every candidate needs to make calculations and compromises to win, but there are certain things that should be inviolable. Edwards has already admitted that when he was in Congress, he let political calculations override his own moral compass in voting to support the war. Gore and Obama, in the same situation, made the more difficult (but correct) decision.
Is there some big obvious knock on Richardson at this point?
This is probably gratuitous nitpicking, but the whole Whizzer White/RoevWade was in the 80s thing was pretty cringe-inducing. But my bigger issue with Richardson is that he seems to be trying to race HRC for who's going to be the biggest hawk in the field.
Giuliani has no lips. Chief Justice Rehnquist and ex-Sen. Slade Gorton were the two most prominent lipless politicians back in the day, but now only Giuliani remains. (George H.W. Bush didn't really have much in the way of lips either -- he lost because of his stupid "read my lips" line, when he hardly had any).
I can easily imagine Giuliani floating around with a thin smile on his face, his forked tongue flickering in and out, until suddenly he strikes and swallows a victim whole. Whatever his weaknesses, he gets top marks on the "Is he evil enough to do the job?" question.
Gore and Obama, in the same situation, made the more difficult (but correct) decision.
In the same situation, as long as you don't count their not being in the Senate and therefore not casting a vote.
The problem is, those with more "serious" foreign policy experience in the race are likely to keep us in Iraq, agitate against Iran and generally try hard to impress the editorial page at the Washington Post. I'll take Edwards or Obama over those insecure chest-beaters who are still fighting the culture wars of the 60s.
After living under Bush, here are the qualities I'd like in a president when dealing with foreign policy:
* A hunger to restore our moral stature in the world.
* A curious mind.
* A willingness to admit mistakes.
* Impeccable diplomatic skills.
* An approach untethered by ideology.
Edwards and Obama seem to fit these best, which is all I can hope for in a CiC. Everyone learns on the job as president, even a former Vice President. Cheney would be an exception, obvs.
34: Biggest hawk? Hmmm. I just saw a mailer from him at my parents' house where he claimed he would start withdrawing troops from Iraq on day 1 of his presidency. Or maybe day 2. Anwyay, post haste.
38 is closer to what I understood his foreign policy position to be. His website, for whatever that might be worth, reiterates the emphasis on complete withdrawal.
In the same situation, as long as you don't count their not being in the Senate and therefore not casting a vote.
well, obama was a politician at the time. it may have just been in the illinois statehouse, but he went out of his way to speak out against the war even though it wasn't necessarily on his legislative plate. and he certainly would have had it used against him at reelection time if the war turned out to be a popular thing.
so yes, i think obama was more courageous than edwards or clinton back when it counted most.
38: No, you're right. He's been very assertive about withdrawing from Iraq. My impressions (which may or may not have any realistic grounding) are more of the "I can wrestle a buffalo" posturing, which turns me off personally, but may be an advantage in the electorate at large.
Shrug.
41: Now now, apo. Just because you can't wrestle a buffalo doesn't mean you should hate those of us who can.
41, 42, 44: "wrestle" s/b "copulate with"
42: That is to say, I came away from the debate with some vague, slightly negative feelings about Richardson (after being completely neutral on him before it), but they aren't really based in anything substantive. I may be reacting irrationally to Althouse declaring him the winner in a rout.
I will not, shall not, cannot wrestle (or copulate with) Althouse.
I can easily imagine Giuliani floating around with a thin smile on his face, his forked tongue flickering in and out, until suddenly he strikes and swallows a victim whole.
I've nothing to add, I simply think that image - rendered so masterfully - is worth seeing twice in one thread.
45: "copulate with" s/b "press, ferment and consume the juice of"
until suddenly he strikes and swallows a victim whole.
For this reason one is advised to wear a ferret visibly at all times.
I don't care if you're bitter lately, Standpipe. Comment 50 is a thing of beauty.
Although, not to nitpick, but isn't it mongeese that are the real ward against snakes?
Sometimes you need a bigger mongoose. A humongoose.
I may be reacting irrationally to Althouse declaring him the winner in a rout.
Althouse isn't objectionable because her opinions are necessarily wrong...she's objectionable because of her personality and her inability to take things seriously. If someone like her finds Richardson appealing instead of saying "LOL this d00d has no chance, GO HOME luzer", it may be a good sign for him.
But ferrets are the real ward against snake-headed hizzonerdemons. And the plural of mongoose is mongooses. Although around here, "roadkill" would also work.
Like Austro in 7, appeals to "regaining our moral leadership" or "restoring our moral stature" give me pause.
While it may be necessary rhetoric in an election season, it seems to me that:
a) We're carrying such a black mark against us in the world's eyes that a simple return to sanity wouldn't be enough to get people to trust us again, and we need politicians who will acknowledge that.
b) While the Bush administration has been pissing away our political, financial, and military capital, the rest of the world has continued its inevitable post-Cold War realignment, and we need politicians who are cleareyed and foresighted about how America fits into that world.
c) We've had an absolutely toxic breakout of nationalistic sentiment in this country---American Exceptionalism at its most dangerous---and we need to be very, very careful about how to move forward from it; for example, we don't get to press "reset," for God's sake.
I'm sure none of the candidates will listen to me, and I'm sure that my advice doesn't translate into uplifting campaign ads. Anyway, despite his vagueness and caution, I'm still very interested in Obama.
Bob Graham would've been okay too.
60: You have to act nationalistic to get elected. Acting nationalistic consists of saying incredibly vague feel-good things, and once elected, the president can start expressing his true honest feelings (expressing them not necessarily publicly, but to let other leaders know he's sane) about our reduced stature without going back on any promises.
Another vote against "moral stature." People overrate the value, or maybe the fixedness, of moral principles. I want a materialist who looks around at the world, decides what he believes is in the best interests of the US, and then figures out what we can get away with.
re: 60
jm, that seems absolutely right.
I want a moral realism, although I'm not sure that's an International Relations category.
I want world peace. But I'd settle for moral realism, or even whirled peas.
60: Yes, the belief in American exceptionalism can be (and has been) extremely toxic, but I see Edwards as trying to use the widespread belief in American exceptionalism as a challenge to try to live up to that ideal, not, as with Bush et al, an excuse to do whatever the fuck we want because we're inherently the good guys.
He talks about restoring our moral stature in terms of concrete things like repudiating torture, the indefinite detention of suspects without trial, and pre-emptive war. I don't see the problem there.
Another vote against "moral stature." People overrate the value, or maybe the fixedness, of moral principles. I want a materialist who looks around at the world, decides what he believes is in the best interests of the US, and then figures out what we can get away with.
Really? I don't. I want a president who has, for example, a visceral revulsion to torture, on the basis that it is morally unjustifiable. Domestically, I want a president who looks at the aftermath of Katrina and says, that was just fucking wrong to treat people that way.
But "regaining moral authority" isn't some abstract concept or rhetorical throwaway. "Moral stature" may be a phrase that gives people the willies, but as a superpower, people either see us as a benevolent giant or a malevolent giant, and those perceptions have a huge impact on world affairs (and we're still by far the world's major superpower, recent geopolitical realignments notwithstanding). Like it or not, the rest of the world looks at us as a giant. "Regaining moral authority" is the only way to prevent encirclement against us.
I'll vote for whirled peas.
Seriously though, the `moral leadership' bunk is stupid, but may be politically unavoidable. Not a good sign when it shows up in avoidable contexts, though.
And guys, what's with longing for a "realist"? We had that with Henry Kissinger, who stared into the abyss of human rights atrocities perpetrated by our Cold War allies and smiled.
Seriously though, the `moral leadership' bunk is stupid
Could you explain why you think so?
70: just because a guy calls what he does `realism', doesn't make it so. But yeah, good point about the terminolgy.
It's not just terminology. "Realism" -- i.e. cold-blooded cynicism about notions of good and evil on the world stage, is a nice way of saying "statecraft which seeks only pure power".
71: seriously? so-called exceptionalism is mostly wrongheaded anyway, but more importantly, the current task isn't to reclaim some sort of (realistic or not) leadership, but to dig out of hole and get back to acceptable.
73: see, that's what I mean't. I don't think `cold blooded cynicism' is the only or best usage of `realism', but we can't get away from that taint, now.
You can want a moral president without wanting someone to reinforce notions of America's moral imperatives. The problem with "we have moral stature" is that it makes us blind to the horrible things we do, because we're always the good guys, after all. I think that's what's giving people the willies.
71: seriously? so-called exceptionalism is mostly wrongheaded anyway, but more importantly, the current task isn't to reclaim some sort of (realistic or not) leadership, but to dig out of hole and get back to acceptable.
Most Americans are unwilling to accept that we're in this hole you describe. "Moral leadership" is a way of saying "no more crazy illegal wars, torture, or detention camps, but don't worry -- we'll still be number one! Number one in human rights." Which would be a fine thing, in my eyes.
No American running for president has a chance if he or she doesn't give lip service to exceptionalism, so the question is, why not be exceptional in our commitment to ending human suffering? Or at least the human suffering that our country is responsible for? That's what these folks mean when they trot out the moral leadership line.
There is a huge difference between someone who claims moral authority and someone who has morals.
Joe isnt saying he wants someone who claims moral justification, but someone who reacts morally to the issues of the day.
Huge difference.
There was a time when surrendering to the Americans meant that you were not going to beaten or lost forever.
That "the Americans are coming" had an encouraging sound, not "oh fuck!"
That's why I emphasized moral realism, Joe.
I do believe in the principles you listed: torture is just fucking wrong, so is abandoning your own citizens after a massive natural disaster. There's a lot of shit that's gone down in the last few years I would have thought were blindingly obviously wrong---and self-defeating. The Bush Administration has gone so far below my baseline that I don't even know what to say.
But, seriously, I lived abroad a lot before the elections of 2004, and everyone was just holding their breath in the hopes that the giant America regained its sanity enough to kick Bush out. We didn't. They've been making other arrangements since then. Eight years is a long time, particularly when the Cold War bipolarity has broken up decisively. (Yes, Russia is playing a rather Soviet role, but I'd argue it's doing so in a new way.)
Anyway, we're militarily weaker than we used to be, we're gigantically in debt, and every day brings new indicators of a possible gigantic economic collapse. We're not exactly weak---all those damned nuclear warheads still exist---but we're in no way the giant that we were in the 1990s, and everyone knows it.
77: The lipservice is understood, and as I suggested, quite politically understandable. Not understanding that it is lipservice, is inept.
`Most Americans' don't believe evolution is true, apparently.
Foreign policy realism is the view that a nation's foreign policy should take into account only considerations of the national interest. Kissinger is a realist. It's possible to argue for less awful foreign policy on realist grounds -- citing blowback or the loss of "soft power" and prestige or whatever. But that's different from wanting a non-realist foreign policy.
But, seriously, I lived abroad a lot before the elections of 2004, and everyone was just holding their breath in the hopes that the giant America regained its sanity enough to kick Bush out. We didn't. They've been making other arrangements since then.
Really? I'd assumed that that was the point at which many foreigners gave up on the US's role as global leader, but what "other arrangements" do you mean?
Foreign policy realism is the view that a nation's foreign policy should take into account only considerations of the national interest.
Which is what I like. We're competent in evaluating our interests, or in evaluating arguments that action X is in our interest. Beyond that, I have my doubts. I feel sure that many of the liberal hawks were hawks because they wanted to Do Good. Accordingly, I'm pretty leery of FP Do Gooders. It's impossible for me to believe that we can do a reasonable job of estimating costs when we know we won't bear them; I'm not so sure we're much better when we know we will bear them, but I think we're a little better at it.
what "other arrangements" do you mean?
JIHAD!
And Mandom.
84: Do you think it's right, though, to say, "This course of action would promote our national interest, but it would lead to the suffering of many innocent foreigners, so we shouldn't do it?" If you agree with that kind of thinking, you're not a real realist.
86:
You have to have a sufficient long term view of national interest. Something might be in our national interest today, but bite us in the ass in 5 years.
86: Depends on the national interest. I take it to be in the national interest to reinforce certain moral norms, even when we know that all states, including our own, stray from those norms from time to time. But I don't think I know what "harm to many innocent foreigners" means. The neocons argued that inaction on Iraq would mean such a harm, They still argue that, and I think that some of them are sincere. I really don't want decisions made on that basis.
87: Maybe. But if you can get away with it? Or if it might bight us on the ass, but might not, and the rewards are huge and Bayesian considerations say to go for it? Would you ever say that a course of action is simply wrong and shouldn't be undertaken for that reason?
re: 83
A lot of countries, I think, started thinking about how to do an end-run around the US on important issues because the US was so transparently crazy that you just couldn't fucking deal with them on anything. Not just that they had crazy views but that they were bat-shit nuts on all levels and couldn't even be trusted to stick to things they'd agreed upon or committed to in public.
The US shits on its allies, fucks them over every chance it gets. A lot of countries, I think, now think, 'These fucks can't be reasoned with or dealt with as a civilized nation'.
That's not to say they'd come out and say that in public.
re: Richardson---I'm sure he's a fine diplomat, and possibly a fine governor (teo?), but my understanding is that he was a crappy administrator of the DOE, and given to meaningless and annoying gestures, like the Indian flag flap at Fermilab. Since running the DOE is much more akin to the total job of the presidency than governing a sparsely populated state or negotiating narrow treaties, and since he hasn't shown any standout talents, I'm inclined to shrug him off for nw.
America's moral stature: the fact is a plurality of the voters--including that segment that will decide this election--has some wishy-washy, feel-good notion of American moral leadership. The trick is not to go Howard Zinn on their ass and disabuse them of this notion, making them feel foolish and cynically bereft. The trick is to recognize that this notion is fundamentally an emotional sensibility, vague enough to be harnessed behind a concretely better set of endeavors than it has, historically been. So you don't ask the voter to abandon this sensibility, but to use it to value its best interpretation. #1 in Human Rights---sounds awesome to me.
The fact is, there are some things we truly rock at. I was reading that NYT article about the counterfeit glycol-substituted glycerin that was poisoning people in Panama; buried in the story is mention of a team from the CDC doing some ace movie-style detective work to help out the Panamanians. Sure, this whole mess might not have happened had our trade policies not encouraged all kinds of cheating in China, blah blah blah--but the fact is that we have tons of bureaucracies and institutions that do amazing things and help the rest of the world in amazing ways. I would be more than happy to throw myself behind a government that made more than window-dressing out of such efforts. If Edwards can rally people towards such a focus, more power to him.
88: I agree that the "moral" case for invading Iraq was highly dubious, even though some smart people have deluded themselves into really believing it. (Wolfowitz continues to prove himself to be a master of self-deception.) But it's important for us on the left to understand and assert that there isn't a choice between just realism and neoconservatism, even though that's what the neocons have been arguing. There's got to be a way forward that weighs both realist and moral concerns but comes up with better answers than Kissinger or Richard Perle do.
90, so has the UK been alone in not doing that, or what?
Also, what "important issues"? As you may assume, the US media tells us nothing of the sort.
91: right; you can't have a politicial step on fundamentally emotionally held beliefs, but you really, really don't want to trust someone who takes something like `moral leadership' as an article of faith (cf. Bush).
There are a lot of things the US does really well, too. (Of course, that is true of a lot of countries, hence part of the problem with `exceptionalism'). Any kind of realistic playing to strengths is great.
Maybe it's just a problem of the phrase. It's going to take a lot more than a change of adminstration to make `moral leadership' look like anything more than at best naiveity, and at worst a sick joke. Currently, it's more of a `beam in thine own eye' situation.
re: 93
No, I think a lot of EU and other countries would like to play the game both ways. They don't want to alienate the US but they also realize that, at the moment, the US is largely a bad actor on the world stage and, to the extent that they can, they'll deal with stuff on their own.
There have been attempts by the EU and others to approach Iran, the Israel/Palestine issue, climate change, some trade issues, etc. Not particularly successful attempts, it has to be said.
96: I'd guess that playing the game both ways just isnt' that effective. But yes, that seems to be the way it's going at the moment.
Anyway, what I had in mind is that a lot of countries seem to be gently positioning for a post-unipolar world.
91: Richardson's been a good governor, and DOE was totally and utterly fucked long before he got there. Most of the problems there had been brewing for a long time before he was appointed, and just happened to explode on his watch. It's true that he did a very poor job of dealing with those problems, though, so he doesn't get off the hook entirely. It's definitely the weakest part of his resume.
There's got to be a way forward that weighs both realist and moral concerns but comes up with better answers than Kissinger or Richard Perle do.
I'm sure there is, but I don't think it is formalizable. You just have to be careful about who you select as advisors. (I think Kissinger and Perle both exude a certain corrupt morality: "You have to have the courage to do bad things." Another reason I don't trust policies in which moral reasons are pushed very far forward.)
There's got to be a way forward that weighs both realist and moral concerns but comes up with better answers than Kissinger or Richard Perle do.
Yes, there is. It's called Liberal Internationalism and it's what we were doing before this whole mess started. It seems to work out okay.
teo and the UN, sittin' in a tree...
101: Or so the mullahs would have you believe....
102: Yglesias is up here too. It's a little awkward.
This thread was almost all male. Just saying.
I think you're an "almost", JM.
You're a ballerina jock, that's what.
The mullahs don't get every right, Brock.
That'll teach you to read a mcmanus comment. There's also lizardbreath, becks, bostoniangirl and ile.
There's also lizardbreath, becks, bostoniangirl and ile
And the UN, which is obviously a woman. John Bolton doesn't fuck dudes.
110.---Argh, that should be "everything right," and on that note, I'm out to play bridge.
I alway scroll up from the bottom of threads, and LB last commented at 2:47. It just felt unusually male for this blog. Never mind.
95: Fair enough, but I think here it's less an article of faith and more a kind of collective-self reprimanding tool.
99: The kind of discussion that makes me wish we had less reportage about argyle socks and hair-styles and more about things that actually matter, like a candidate's working style and performance reviews. Ah well. That's as far off as a realistic view of our morals.
113: Oy.
We get in a lot of wars, dawg. That said, I'm such an incorigible naive optimist that I not only agree that we should harness the concept of american exceptionalisn as a force for less-evil foreign policy, I also kinda sorta actually believe in american exceptionalism full stop. This is one of the things that led me astray on the whole "is invading Iraq the worst idea ever" question, so I should obviously abandon it, but my li'l patriotic heart just don't want to let go. USA! USA! USA! Suck it, whole rest of the world! Wait, I'm not selling this real well, am I?
We get in a lot of wars, dawg.
There's one of Gore Vidal's recent books that has a list of US military operations since 1945. It's quite astonishing: 250-300 different operations.
However, for me, the power of the list was somewhat spoiled by the fact that, arguably, several conflicts were double counted. The list simply counted individually and discretely named operations -- Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Shield, etc -- but most conflicts tended to involve several named operations.
Nevertheless, dubious double counting aside, the list was still absurdly long.
I also kinda sorta actually believe in american exceptionalism full stop.
You people need to stop with that shit, really. You're exceptional only in the sense that you spend a lot of money on guns and weapons and seem overly keen on demonstrating their use.
One of the obstacles for anyone opposing the Iraq War or any previous war is the demand that prove that you're just as patriotic as the hawks. If you say that the hawks are too patriotic, your persuasiveness is diminished -- one of the defining principles of nationalism seems to be that it's impossible to be too patriotic.
Any universal religious, ethical, or rational principle puts limits on patriotism, and even particularist, relativist points of view can weaken patriotism if they're focussed non-nationally. But the state and the media have very powerful tools at its disposal for manipulating, engineering, and coercing consent and committment.
The thing to remember about Jackmormon is, she has an irrational dislike of John Edwards based on his teeth or his ability to make people like him or something.
I don't like his teeth either. People with big shiny white teeth are unnatural, or possibly American, which is essentially the same thing ....
29: Late to the thread, and so far I'm pulling for Edwards, but I wanted to respond to the "is there a knock on Bill Richardson" question.
Steve Clemons annoys me with his mancruch on Chuck Hagel, but back in January he raised troubling questions about Richardson's behavior around women. It's worth a read.
Liberals need to reclaim the concepts of morality and patriotism from moral leaders like Falwell and patriots like Bush.
Among decent people, Falwell just ain't considered moral. Among those who care deeply about the welfare of the U.S., Bush is no patriot.
Wait, am I getting a lecture on teeth from a Brit?
re: 125
And you win the prize!
117: 118: Let's get real. There never has been any group not believing they're exceptional, the 20th Century proved that one, as have all the rest before and this one too. You can figure on Chinese "exceptionalism" to be really interesting when their economy and military gets up to speed in this century.
re: 127
If you think that other countries are 'exceptionalist' in the way that the US is, your mistaken. Really.
That's not to say that other countries haven't told similar stories about themselves in the past, just that they don't now.
Many countries, not all, have exceptionalist beliefs. Japan, Sweden, Switzerland. And often quite rightly, because history is path-dependent.
I've even met Indiana-exceptionalists. Not shitting you.
The difference is that the US is exceptionalist, interventionist, and (as they say) preponderant.
American nationalists, like all heavily armed nationalists, mix bragging and self-pity in a way that makes you crazy. (People have forgotten how horribly the Czechs and Poles were treating the poor helpless Germans during the 1930s.)
Have you guys seen this hilarious review of Newt's new Pearl Harbor novel?
The book is subtly subtitled "A Novel of December 8th" to signal its attention to the Japanese point of view. On the basis of that detail, you might expect a high level of fastidiousness from "Pearl Harbor." And you would be spectacularly wrong. Because you would find phrases like "to withdraw backward was impossible," sounds like "wretching noises" to accompany vomiting, or constructions like "incredulous as it seemed, America had not reacted."
129: preponderant Yeah. It's the ponderousness that's important, not the universal exceptionalism. As for Europe, history suggests that current sweet reasonableness is a result of exhaustion rather than reason. I have no doubt that will change.
Bush and Cheney were somehow involved with the 911 attacks. The invasion of the Middle East was planned by the P,N,A,C, in the late nineties. They and the Bush Regime are guilty. They used the 911 attacks as their new Pearl Harbor. CHENEY AND BUSH ARE TRAitors to the u.s. and need to be indicted for torture, mass murder and permanent agony for people around the world.
It only takes two days for posts here to hit Google. Neat.
