Wales2004

This may seem an odd question but I am curious about what is meant by the term "African-American" to those who use it. At first I thought it was one of those politically correct (but highly inaccurate) terms people used instead of saying "black," but I've since read online disputes about it being used to refer to black Americans who are descendants of the African slave trade.

I personally don't use the term because I think it leads to a great deal of unnecessary confusion in a nation that already has more than enough confusion over racial issues. People tend to use it interchangeably with black which would imply that all black people are American, which is of course not true. I've even heard someone use the term "American African-Americans" as a way of make a distinction between black Americans and non-American black people.

"African-American" is not a nationality since there is no such nation as Africa-America. It's not a race and mankind did not originate in America. It's not an ethnicity because those brought over in the slave trade were not all from the same place in Africa and Rwanda is an example of an African nation where the nationals are not seen as one people so it's highly unlikely that those who were sold into slavery from various locations all came from the same ethnic group. The slaves may have all come from the same continent but they didn't all speak the same language and weren't one people.

African is used here as if it's synonymous with black and it's not because not all Africans are black--regardless of whether people want to debate over what constitutes a true African. Any person who was born in an African nation and lived his or her life in that nation is more of an African than any American whose only connection to Africa is being or believing (without complete certainty) that he or she is a descendant of Africans.

Anyway, I am no fan of that term nor Asian-American or any hyphenated American term unless it is being used to refer to a naturalized citizen.

Exactly which media are you referring to, Carl? This fantasy that the media is having a love affair with Romney is laughable. They spent the better part of last week crucifying him for criticizing the President's botched middle eastern foreign policy - instead of focusing on the botched foreign policy that resulted in the mess we have over there now.

Is this the same media that continues to blame some rotten YouTube video for radicals gone wild? Is this the same media that fails to focus on contradictory statements coming from the White House regarding whether or not Egypt is actually an ally? Or perhaps it's the same media is glosses over the fact that we have just experienced the first terrorist attack against Americans on American property since 9/11 - all under Obama's watch?

I know that the liberal media does not love him but that doesn't stop some of them from letting him dance around direct questions.

I can't recall ever hearing a president be blamed for acts of terrorism. Even when Osama Bin Laden wasn't pursued when Bill Clinton was in office (after that initial attack on the World Trade Center) and the attacks on 9/11 took place, I didn't hear anyone suggest that it was Bill Clinton's fault for not having Osama Bin Laden captured nor did anyone blame George W. Bush for it being under his watch.

I would like to know what botched foreign policy Barack Obama has in place that has resulted in what's been taking place in certain nations overseas. Please enlighten me.

OMG, I'm a dumbass! Sorry, Wales! I got confused when I typed it... I meant to write your name down.

Seriously, this is what happens with limited sleep for two weeks. It's like when you are reading something and you say what you are reading as opposed to what you are thinking. Or is that the other way around...

Can you forgive my stupidity???

So, where is leave us is... maybe we're so far apart on politics that we are bumping into each other on the other side!

Eh, seriously... you're kind of cool and I enjoy reading your stuff, even when I don't agree. We'd probably get along pretty good in the real world. We obviously don't disagree on EVERYTHING... ;-)

This is how I feel right now minus the Coke

Marceline, it would seem you and I agree on more things than not... That we spend more time arguing about the things we don't agree on kind of sucks... but, after all, this is a political forum and someone has got to disagree to make it interesting!

Where does that leave you and me because you actually quoted me?

LOL! This is the one I find most hysterical. Anytime someone says it I wonder when they stepped of the transporter pad from Planet Idiot.

My usual response to this is that Obama or no Obama, the person who thought I was an "N-word" yesterday still thinks that today. I honestly wonder where the idea that we've entered a "post-racial" society came from.

In order for a person to be able to live an entirely race free existence in America, she has to shut the media out because for some people that's the only reminder.

I first heard the "post-racial" term after Barack Obama won the nomination. I was watching one of those panel discussions and someone said that Barack Obama, Cory Booker and Deval Patrick represented "post-racial" politics and I figured that people in the media especially love to coin phrases that mean absolutely nothing to me.

There's no problem with guessing based on history. Assuming that a serial killer is likely to be a white male is radically different than believing that all white males are geneticaly disposed to being serial killers. Because they are white, society is more likely to profile a serial killer in general as iin what type of characteristics a serial has as opposed to basing it on race. Let me try another example. The U.S. Track and Field team has primarily black sprinters on it and they generally dominate in world competition. If the U.S. sprinters were white and won world events regularly, is it likely that anyone would question why white athletes are dominant in sprinting events and try to come up with some genetic reason why? I would say not because no one questioned when they won events before. Yet the question arises for black athletes which leads certain people to make it a genetic affair. So then you have people believing that slavery produced this master race of black American athletes even though every black American is not a sprinter or anywhere close to being one. Other athletes train to excel in their particular sport but black people are just naturally gifted because the idea of a black person having to work hard at something is unfathomable. Yet if a bunch of black American kids turned out b be geniuses, that wouldn't be blamed on genetics. And hard work would not be credited. In fact, there'd probably be some sort of inquisition made since some would be convinced that it't not at all possible that they could be geniuses.

I work on my prejudices so little by little I make less assumptions about people I don't know. Things such as assuming that you know what a person looks like based on a name on a piece of paper or a voice over the phone. Or assuming what a person will be like based on the person's look. Our society encourages that sort of thing so it's harder to resist.

Yeah but the reason stereotypes exist is because they make it easier for some people to make sense of the world.

That may be true but people are also taught stereotypes. Kids are raised to believe that they are different from other people and that those people will either resent them or hate them because of those differences. It's no different from parents insisting their sons not cry because that will make a boy less of a man. Kids are taught to be racialists in much the same way with various justifications. It's one thing for someone else to believe stereotypes about certain individuals but quite another for those individuals to perpetuate stereotypes about themselves. Society likes to overlook the self-steterotyping because that truth would distract from the other.

I go back to some things i saw posted by GOP trolls on another site when the survey showing that Romney got 0% of the black vote from those surveyed.

1.) "See black people are the REAL racists They hate Mitt Romney because he's white!" - That presumes that the ONLY reason a black voter or any voter would have not to like Romney is because he's white. That's not true. Those black people aren't refusing to support Romney because he's white, it's because he's MITT ROMNEY! If you put Barack Obama up against either of the Clintons right now the numbers would be very different.

2.) "Blacks vote for the Democrat (sic) Party without thinking!" - Nope. Black voters stick with the Democratic Party because decades ago the Republican Party chose to employ the Southern Strategy. The low numbers the GOP gets with black voters today is a direct result of years of demonizing those voters. We see this repeating itself today with Latinos.

3.) "Black people only voted for Barack Obama because of his race and white voters only voted for him out of white guilt!" - Again I direct everyone's attention to Bill Clinton who many in "the black community" (because there's only one, right?) still consider America's first black president. If that doesn't work please look at Artur Davis, a black politician in Alabama who was the first to lose the black vote to a WHITE MAN.

Your rebuttals are valid but I also happen to see some validity in those statements as well.

I find race discussions non-productive because they usually amount to the blame game with one side pointing the finger at the other and neither being able to see an ounce of truth in the other's position. There is this insistence that there can only be one truth when it comes to racism, racialism et al and that's not the case. If one girl grows up in Beverly Hills and another grows up on the east side of Los Angeles, they're likely to have completely different experiences because of their different environments. In fact, two girls who live next to each other or in the same house can experience life differently but people will be adamant that if they happen to be black that they are the same. The ones who don't fit the stereotype are "accused" of not being black or "acting white."

On the one hand you have stock responses from white people:

--I am not racist because I don't see in color and I don't care if you're red, brown, black, white or piurple.

--my neighbor (who I apparently allow to live near me) is black, or my co-worker is black or someone else with whom I don't normally socialize is black but I talk to that person so I'm not a racist

--Barack Obama is president so racism is over (even though I would never have voted for someone like him)

and when anyone claims that black people can be racist too then someone black may deny it on the basis that only people in positions of power can be racist and since black people are not in positions of power they cannot be racist which isn't true. Black racists do exist. They are usually referred to when white racists want to deflect so they point out that there are black people who are just as ignorant about race as they are--as if that's a good thing.

Then you have black people who seem to believe that all white people do is sit around and plot the demise of the black man. I've seen some of the most ridiculous things blamed on white people and the first place some people go is not to the stupid thing they did to cause their problems but to white people and slavery is the root of every problem, according to some.

There's plenty of blame to go around but that's been the way for quite a long time and where has that gotten anyone. It might help if people are honest about their own prejudices instead of keeping them at point just below the surface that causes them to go to that place first when they get a tad bit stressed or angry. This is why I love the movie Crash so much. It's a good depiction of how people walk around oblivious to their own discriminatory ways but are so easily able to hone in on someone else's and become outraged about the same fault as theirs in another because theirs is, of course, justified.

The whole sexism against women thing is pretty much the case though there are some old timer women still hanging around like Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell, and the ABC News anchor whose name escapes me at present.

But they usually won't allow a woman who looks like she's pushing 90 a la Regis to co-host a show with a really young guy.

Even though there are those who prefer any man over a woman for president, Hilary Clinton had other issues such as people who flat out don't like her or her husband and her campaign underestimated Barack Obama's campaign, so there is more to that story than one single obvious factor.

Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that there aren't any black voters (besides Samuel L. Jackson) who voted for Barack Obama on the basis of race. There are voters who voted against him for that reason and there are white voters who voted for him for that reason to feel good about their charitable open-minded selves.

People who assume that every black voter who voted for Barack Obama did so on the basis of race are wrong. Some did. I can reiterate that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosely Braun, Alan Keyes and whoever else may have run would have received a whole lot more votes if black voters only voted on the basis of race. We can acknowledge that some people did without falsely claiming that every one did.

One of the things that makes the mention of race such a hot button topic is the continued insistence that black people operate off some shared brain cell that can only see in black.

There have been a bunch of white serial killers in this society and no one has suggested that white people are genetically predisposed to becoming mass murderers. How long would it take for someone to get on television claiming that black people had a mass murderer gene if......?

So no. All the black voters didn't go out and vote for Barack Obama on the basis of race....only some.

And not that this has anything to do with anything but I won't let that stop me--I was watching a show on MSNBC last week and someone said something about slavery and the White House and how nice it is to see this first family. I get Michelle Obama's background but the whole idea that Barack Obama's mother allegedly had a blood tie to the first documented slave from the African slave trade is a bit funny. I mean if you can't tie the father to it then his mother will do.

Barack Obama is not proof that America is "post-racial," he's just evidence that some white Americans have no problem voting for a non-white American male for President (or a half-white one since he's biracial). The fact that he has to be identified as black and not accurately as biracial is a great indication that this country is stuck in a racialist ditch. If he "looked white" but had the same background, would people fall all over themselves insisting he was black because of a racist "one-drop rule," or would he be allowed the privilege of being white?

I said before I thought Obama won over Hillary because of his race. That doesn't mean I am racist, that means I think society hates women more than they hate black men. He had no qualifications to be president and nothing in his résumé. People voted for him anyway. Such is the way of the world.

This makes zero sense to me in terms of logic. If society hates women more than black men then the issue was sexism. He benefitted from the fact that people would rather embrace a man in a position of power than a woman. If he won because of his race then it would mean that people would prefer a black man over any other candidate which was not the case. Rejecting a woman is not the same as embracing a race.

I find the whole argument about people not having qualifications to be president neither here nor there. I have disagreed with others on the topic of who is more qualified when it comes to comparison but there is no list of quallifications to be president other than age and citizenship. That's pretty much why some are able to look at Sarah Palin and claim that she's just like them and should be president on the basis of their commonality. Would I ever suggest that anyone who is just like me be president? No, because I would prefer to see a person who is extremely more knowledgeable and rational than I am in any public office. So if Sarah Palin is qualified then so is Barack Obama.

Been there, done that... If you are firm in your convictions, then it doesn't matter what sharp-tongued folks say to you. I see some totally outrageous statements here... I get it from friends, particularly when it comes to race issues.

One of my closest friends at work is black and we chat about politics once in a great while. We were discussing many issues... speculated on why MSNBC, for example, cut from their broadcast of the RNC most of the minority speakers... she didn't know or care why. As for Condoleeza Rice speaking there, she told me she didn't like her and that Rice wasn't really black. Of course I responded that Obama then wasn't really black, either. Her response to me was that Rice's daddy wasn't black, and that was where the "gene" came from.

This is head shaking worthy. Your co-worker sounds like one of those racialists who believe there is a special way for black people to act and speak and if they don't then they must not be black. C. Rice's father had a darker skin tone than she does. Whether that makes him white is beyond me but if there is a "gene" for that then everyone in a family would have the exact same skin tone if they have the same two parents.

America is proably the only nation where race isn't just about what the naked eye can see but it's about speech, behavior, musical tastes, food, athletic ability, disposition, intelligence, and fashion. One of my high school teachers told me that she was shocked, when she went to England, to hear the little black children speak cockney. So she expected black children all over the wolrd to sound the same when all the black children in America dom't. But we pretend they all do. And we pretend that whoever does not is exceptional because this one individual has defied the racial boundary and has managed to construct a grammatically correct sentence.

The irony in all of this is that people swear that either all people or just black people originated in Africa. Since when did anyone look at Africa and claim that there was any uniformity going on in terms of speech, behavior, food, intelligence, fashion, etc? How did black Americans become the standard for what constitutes black when there are more black people outside of this nation than in it?

Sheer ignorance. We can accept that white people are diverse. We can even accept that there are various breeds of dogs. We cannot accept that black people are diverse in any way. In politics there is no break down of black voters because everyone knows that black people can only be black and gender does not matter, Age does not matter. Level of education does not matter. They are all the same rap loving, ball playing people.

Oh and I am not at all saying that you think this way....it's just a general observation.

With regard to the lives of gay folks being better if Obama gets elected... horse$hit there, too. The man couldn't even offer support of gay marriage until Biden opened his big mouth and forced the issue... and it was a begruding endorsement... over THREE YEARS into his presidency.

And because of that abolishing DADT doesn't mean a thing. So if a new man comes in and gets rid of DADT plus doesn't support gay marriage, are they better off? I am not saying he's going to make it any better but he did take a step forward and is certainly unlikely to take them backwards which would make some better off than the alternative. I am just guessing though.

And what has Obama done to improve the plight of black folks in this country? Nothing.

This relates to what I said above. Black people are diverse as hard as it may seem. They don't all have the same problems and needs.

I don't know what the plight is but there are more poor white people than poor black people in this country. It's logical because there are more white people in this country. People can argue that the rate of povery among black people is disproportionate but it is only that way because it's made in comparison to white people. So if Barack Obama cannot stop porverty for white people should he pass a special law directed to end poverty for black people only? How many people would find that racist?

I read a blog in which the blogger suggested that there be reparations and that the prison system be abolished because it's unfair to black men. That sounds like a great plan right? Let criminals run around free because some feel that black men are in prison for crimes white men get away with regularly. It would not make sense to imprison criminals across the board?

Technically, Barack Obama cannot do anything for black people in this country until white people in this country stop patronizing black people as some sort of charitable project and start treating them as equals. If that happens then I bet there will be less idiots on televison suggesting that Barack Obama hasn't done anything for black people. He hasn't fed them, hasn't given them jobs, and he hasn't kept them out of prison. They all went to the same school, they all have the same degrees, they all studied the same subjects, and they all have the same skill sets and qualifications so he's going to pass a national decree to make sure they all get the same job.

I don't think that there is any concrete evidence that the film inspired this attack but I'm sure it's no coincidence that is happened on September 11th.

Concrete or not, news outlets are referring to it as a factor. The filmmaker is reported to have gone into hiding.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202080/Innocence-Muslims-creator-Steve-Klein-said-felt-guilt-death-Chris-Stevens.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

My position on voter identification hasn't changed. I have no problem with it but I think it should begin January 1st and not so late into this election cycle and registrants should be included in a national databse to prevent individuals from simultaneously being registered in more than one location. If a registrant moves, that information should be included.

A film that is deemed anti-Muslim sets off attacks against the embassies resulting in death/murder and somehow Iran's nuclear missile program is at the root of it.

So taking a hard line against Iran and starting another war would fix the whole film protest? Diplomacy is even more convoluted than I thought.

Fueding between the US and Israel burst into the open today when Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Prime Minister, sharply criticized recent US statements about Iran while the White House said President Barack Obama would not meet Mr. Netanyahu later this month.

That sentence seems a bit off to me. I don't know anything about the feud but clearly two Israelis (Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are not in agreement with each other when it comes to relations. Also, I commented on information available at the time you made your post so if you're saying something happened today then I would have no way of knowing that it would but still the two Israelis see things differently.

Add this to the list of things I make up and aren't real...

Wendy Rosen, the Democratic challenger to Republican Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st Congressional District, withdrew from the race Monday amid allegations that she voted in elections in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 and 2008.

Democratic leaders — who raised the allegations, urged Rosen to step aside and notified prosecutors — said they would gather Central Committee members this month to identify a write-in candidate for the district, which includes the Eastern Shore and parts of Harford, Carroll, Cecil and Baltimore counties.

Republicans, meanwhile, said the allegations prove that voter fraud is real and called on Democrats join the GOP in calling for reforms.

I'm grateful to Democratic leaders in her state that recognized the problem and took action.

Voter ID is appropriate and should become law across the country... PERIOD.

Please explain to me how Voter I.D. would have prevented this Wendy Rosen from voting in two different states. She probably has I.D. for both states. The problem in this case seems to be the ability to register in multiple states. If a person resides in more than one state then wouldn't it be up to that individual to designate one of those states as the primary residence for the purpose of voting?

It seems that there needs to be a national system in place to verify that a person is only registered to vote in one state and that would have to include being able to distinguish people with the same names from each other.

I don't know whether Barack Obama will improve anything if re-elected but I do believe he won't feel the need to cave in to the Republicans if given another term. He won't be compelled to just accomodate them since he won't be concerned about running for office again. Those who want to keep their seats will probably end up backing off some of their tough talk since they will need to be more mindful of their constituents.

Even though Kerrey is desperate, you don't honestly disagree with his assessment of ObamaCare, do you?

When Charlie Crist was desperate in his run against Marco Rubio and praised Obama, he was hailed as a hero by liberals.

Partisan politics seemingly causes people to run around spouting off onespeake and not ever express independent thoughts that conflict with whatever the party line is.

The whole jumping parties to get re-elected should matter more to constituents than the parties. None of them are touting virtue but the actual voters should wonder about a person so desperate to be in office that he or she would change their whole philosopy just like that to gain votes.

It matters to me, Wales. We are entitled to disagree, correct?

I am not really sure why it is a big deal that it doesn't matter to me if we disagree but I certainly don't expect you to feel the same way. So you care and I don't and everything is a-okay with that.

What information did you see, Wales, that indicated that my statement about Israel being uncomfortable with Obama and his foreign policy is untrue? You said before that the Israelis have said otherwise. Where is this information and could you share it with me?

I saw part of an interview on CNN where Ehud Barak seemed to be pleased with Barack Obama's support. Now considering semantics and perception, I don't know whether that means he isn't uncomfortable or not and there was a reference to a poll in which Israelis gave Barack Obama a favorable rating. Now I'm not big on polls but in this instance I would say that they ought to know better than I what they like.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/cnns-gut-check-for-july-30-2012/

What do you mean here? I never dismissed the rest of Europe. Except for addressing the points Marceline raised by introducing an article indicating widespread support of Obama by a number of European countries, I never referenced the whole of Europe in the list of countries uncomfortable with Obama and his policies, I referenced Germany. That was my intent. Germany. Merkel's Germany.

Okay, have I missed some critical event in world history where speaking of Germany means speaking of the EU as a whole? Of COURSE I didn't reference the whole of Europe when making what you feel was a "negative point"... why would I? I KNOW much of Europe loves Obama... but much of Europe wasn't central to my initial point because I was discussing "longtime allies" that were uncomfortable with Obama, not those that LOVE HIM!

Let me try this again. You referenced Germany as being uncomfortable with Barack Obama's policies.

It was pointed out to you that in general European nations are satisfied with Barack Obama.

You dismissed (unless I misinterpreted your response) those European nations based on the idea that they are fine with Barack Obama because he supports their European policies. This gave me the impression that you were discounting their support of Barack Obama.

This led me to question why it's okay for Germany's (or maybe it's just the head and not the people of the nation as a whole) opinion of Barack Obama to count but not the other European nations that are fine with him.

Basically it comes across to me as though Germany is valid because their is dissatisfaction with Barack Obama but all the other countries are invalid because they happen to like him.

I may have completely misinterpreted what you were conveying and if I have then perhaps you'll take the time to let me know.

Oh and I dont think that because the other European nations like Barack Obama that it's a question of their liking him but still being uncomfortable with him. If more nations in Europe are okay with him than those that are not then I don't see a huge problem.

http://www.nytexaminer.com/2012/06/barack-and-angelas-forty-first-dates/

>>shrugs<< Europe's opinions on Obama's performance would have more relevance to me if Europe wasn't in a state of chaos and disaster. If I wished to dig some more, I could offer up a laundry list of foreign policy gaffes, mistakes, etc., but you would likely dismiss them all. These sorts of mini-debates within the thread never work. If you are satisfied with Obama's handling of foreign policy, that's great. It's a matter of opinion.

Our standing in the world is no better today than during the Bush years. For all of Obama's ass-kissing and bowing (literally) before others, relations with friends and enemies alike remain poor. However, when Putin and Jintao express a preference in an American election, it gives me pause...

In terms of this specific topic, I don't think it matters or not whether our opinions on it vary.

What matters to me at the moment is that you made a statement which included Israel and Germany. I dismissed Israel based on information I saw indicating that there was no issue.

As far as I know, Germany is part of Europe so I don't get why Germany would count but you easily dismiss the rest of Europe simply because it doesn't fit the negative point.

And, I'm sorry but I didn't know that Mitt Romney was an expert on foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Didn't he refer to Russia as this nation's number one geopolitcal foe? He also took what was supposed to have been an easy overseas photo op trip and stuck his foot in his mouth. I certainly won't forget his desire to restore Anglo-Saxon relations either.

Sure...

Israel, of course. No brainer...

India has been less than pleased. Obama seems afraid and/or unwilling to really counter China in any significant way as their sphere of influence grows, encircling India. To be fair, India didn't like when Bush tried to get chummy with Pakistan to better facilitate the war on terror (bad move, in my opinion). Obama continued those policies.

Relations with Germany are poor; bad blood between Merkel and Obama date back prior to his election.

Poland is displeased, Obama having referred to a World War II death camp there as a "Polish death camp", rather than a Nazi death camp. Blunder. He hasn't done much to improve relations with them... kind of abandoned them re: missile defense because he was afraid and/or intimidated by Putin... or just didn't care. Whatever his thought process... Poland isn't particularly happy.

That's four of them. His foreign policy sucks and allies he hasn't totally pissed off, he's offended in some way. Even Australia was irritated when he cancelled scheduled visits there TWICE... then managed to visit Indonesia but couldn't seem to find the time to jump over to Australia during that time. I could think up some other stuff... do some research and Google it, I suppose... but that's just the stuff I can recall off the top of my head.

Thanks for answering.

I've already discounted Israel because I'll take the word of the Israelis who know and they've said otherwise.

I don't know how major any poor relations with Germany and Poland might be in terms of it being problematic since I haven't heard or read anything.

The Australian thing sounds terribly minor.

If these are the examples then I fail to see a porblem considering the size of the world.

It's my understanding that in general the Europeans at least see him as a major upgrade over his predecessor.

Page 115... easily the best and most informative page in this entire thread! I may not agree with everything you all are saying, I certainly feel as if I'm finally gaining a better understanding of your viewpoints and why you've arrived at them. I seriously appreciate these posts...

Partisan rancor sucks... discussion and reason rules...

Will you at least share which longtime allies are uncomfortable with the U.S.?

Jane, we'll have to agree to disagree, but nobody could have written a more eloquent defense. In regards to your excellent point that he didn't understand Washington and was in over his head, Obama would have served himself--and the country--far better had he accumulated more experience in the Senate prior to running for president.

I don't think more experience in the Senate would have helped him. There are plenty of residents in the Senate who would not have done any better than he and maybe even worse. He had a window and he went through it at the right time as far as I'm concerned.

People who don't like Obama seem to operate under the assumption that his supporters think he can do no wrong.

Even people who don't dislike him are probably aware that he has some blind followers who accuse anyone who disagrees with him or racism even when they are not being racist or they accuse others of being Uncle Tom/sellouts. They are a bunch of irrational fanatics but people should be smart enough to know that they are not representative of all those who support him.

I don't really think he is a wimp for changing the platform if the changes are representative of what he believes. If he indeed did it to try to avoid criticiism then it's a wimpy move.

I think he's been a wimp but I also find his need to comment on everything that is brought to his attention is annoying especially when he lacks all the facts. I also don't like the pandering and I will leave it at that.

As I had said to QFan... there is some importance to foreign policy. My personal view is bring ALL troops home and screw the rest of the world... don't give anyone a penny and fix our own house first. But that won't happen no matter who we elect. So, protecting an ally is important and what we do and what we say affects our standing in the world and how we're viewed. I don't think Obama has been strong on foreign policy and things are in disarray. Longtime allies are uncomfortable with us. I think Israel is part of larger question about policy and I agree that Dems screwed up badly here. Bad enough to matter? Probably not because the domestic issues rank more important in the eyes of most right now.

As far as Irsrael goes, there was a public opinion poll that gave Barack Obama a favorable rating among its citizens. They ought to know.

I would love to hear which longtime allies are uncomfortable with the U.S.

Yes, if you watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. But according to Charles Krauthhammer on FOX Bill Clinton's speech was a failure, so who in their right mind would listen to anything anyone says on FOX?

A Republican Ooops you said right mind...

Just kidding!!!

Thoughts, anyone, on the God and Jersusalem debacle at the DNC yesterday?

An ideological fight on the floor of the convention, suggesting deep divisions within the Democratic party on the acceptance of religion and our ties to Israel, is easily the biggest story of both conventions this election year.

Now you're making me laugh again. Who knows how many of those delegates actually knew what was going on? I think the bigger story was the fact that a change in the platform was even requested. I am inclined to agree with the "know it alls" and spin doctors who make the point that it is better for a candidate to try to reform the platform than to say that your party's platform is not representative of your platform.

Anyway the Republicans seem to have falsely designated themselves as the party of God not the Democrats who in all their liberal glory are bound to have a number of atheists among them. Oooh and they probably have people among them who aren't anti-Palestinian. What if they even have people of Palestinian descent in their party as well? Imagine that.

Since the pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution then it only seems fair that people have religious freedom. I don't get the whole separation of church and state inconsistencies but that is a whole other topic.

That whole voting three times debacle looked bad and there did not seem to be a two-thirds consensus so he might as well have pretended there was the first time around and saved himself the embarrassment but I doubt average Joe voter cares that much about Israel though he might be appalled that people weren't embracing having God all over their platform.

Maybe this is a big deal for Fox News and some Republicans who need something over which to make a big deal but I'm guessing the rest of what constitutes the media is busy ooooohing over Clinton, planning Hilary Clinton's run in 2016, and speculating over whether Joe Biden will say more crazy things and Barack Obama will deliver the "bestest" ever speech.

/But as we refer to the Voter ID issue, I say issue identification to all voters FOR FREE. Then make it a requirement to present that ID to vote (or whatever else a person may need ID for... buying liquor, showing to an officer when caught speeding, picking up your kid at school, getting free government surplus cheese and bread, etc.

It a state wants to issue a free special voter I.D. card then I see no problem but the card should only be used for voting. If people need identification for other purposes then they should go through the regular process for obtaining that I.D. I just think it would be appropriate to issue this special card at the time new voters register and implement a program for distribution to voters that are already registered.

I do not see the purpose of any single individual showing up to a location to vote as someone else. Plus you can obtain fake I.D. if you;re that desperate. In order for fake voters to make a difference, there has to be a significant number of them and not just one or two here and there.

I admit I have no interest in which celebrities are supporting whom, nor do I care what celebrities think as they may be even more disconnected from the real world and all of us than the politicians we write about!

However, the support of actor Kal Penn is definitely enough to sway me in Obama's direction...

So George Clooney couldn't do it for you? One wink and he just might win me over.

Fox News' Brit Hume: "Extremely impressive woman."

I just read that he found her both impressive and attractive. I didn't know that seemingly stiff exterior would notice and speak of such things.

So...so far Mitt Romney has the support of Ted Nugent, Nicki Minaj, Mr. Walker Texas Anger and sundowing Clint Eastwood.

He's also got Detroit's very own Kid Rock and Kid's buddy Hank Williams, Jr. who was the object of Alec Baldwin's tweets.

I missed all the speeches (on purpose) so the media plans to share snippets and their opinions every time I turn on a "news" oriented show.

And the radio news does not get any better. In between whether or not she accomplished her goals is another dose of freeway closure resulting in "Carmaggedon 2." I cannot believe that an adult utters this nonsense as part of a news story. Southern California is about to come to a halt....seriously. I am screaming on the inside.