[QUOTE=BrainFireBob]
Hell, I could have told you without any polls that Obama’s election would be a huge change in our image, simply off his voting record. When was the last President with a political ideology so sweeping?
[/QUOTE]
How do you infer any “sweeping ideology” from Obama’s voting record?
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Most of the world is dark skinned. Even in America many are a little embarrassed by the rich white guys running our country ,over and over. Obama would show the world that we can esteem black people. They are aware of our history. From slavery to violence against those who sought equal rights, our anti black story is known.
Obama as president would help temper our perceived hypocrisy.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, outside of the western world and perhaps sub Saharan Africa, minus Japan, The notion of a black president will be greeted with skepticism. There have been plenty of black government leaders in Africa, and with the exception of Mandella, haven’t exactly proven to be exceptional. Anything positive for racial attitudes towards blacks globally, will have no impact especially in the Arab world which we so dearly want to change.
On the other hand, given that America has promoted the lot of women who make up a majority throughout the world, a woman president, an advocate for women, would embolden the oppressed women throughout Islam and perhaps affect the high testosterone of Islamic reaction to perceived western negative influences.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Obama’s ambitions are quite modest compared to the nation building agenda of the neocons.
As for international popularity. GHWB and Clinton were about the same. Poppy was much better at foreign policy than domestic and (unlike his idiot son) viewed the international community as important. That’s why he built a real colition before GWI (as opposed to Jr’s paper “coalition of the willing”), and why he didn’t invade Iraq.
Clinton brokered at least some temporary peace initiatives in Israel, deposed a brutal Hatian dictatorship without firing a shot, lost no casualties in Kosovo and and (for whatever its worth) signed NAFTA.
Poppy and Bubba both were pretty well-liked during their terms. It’s really GWB who’s taken the image of the US as essentially good guys to being aggressive, arrogant, warmongering, torturing, hypocritical bullies.
[/QUOTE]
Excuse me, but are you familiar with historical American imperialism? GW Bush did not start that image of America. We’ve had that image since at least Teddy Roosevelt. It was Truman that started the whole Israel mess, and Reagan supported Iran against Iraq throughout the 80s. It’s purely wishful revisionism to claim that we were seen unilaterally as “the good guys” by anyone but ourselves prior to GW Bush. The Brits and French generally liked us, as did the West Germans, but . .yeah, I think we pissed damn near everyone else off. It was a busy century for the good ol’ US of A.
BrainGlutton-
Relative to the other candidates it seems sweeping to me. Worldwide, the division between liberals and conservatives in America is negligible, of course.
Here’s an interview with a guy who says everybody in the world but U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote to elect the U.S. government.
..
Nice way to sneak a personal insult in to GD there, Elvis.
Where the hell did you get *that * from???
If you do think so, though, there’s an icon you can click to have it taken care of.
[QUOTE=BrainFireBob]
BrainGlutton-
Relative to the other candidates it seems sweeping to me. Worldwide, the division between liberals and conservatives in America is negligible, of course.
[/QUOTE]
But, I don’t see how Obama is a whole lot more liberal than Clinton. His political background (among grassroots activist groups in Chicago) is more liberal than hers (the Ogdamned neoliberal corpowhore Democratic Leadership Council), but not so much his stated policies and voting record.