Presumably, if someone did not vote in the Republican primary, then they can vote in the Dem revote. I don't think that party affiliation has anything to do with it. I'd need to look closer at the bylaws.

Posted at March 19, 2008 3:09 PM in response to Many Democratic Voters May Be Disenfranchised from a MI Re-Vote

Let's also not forget that DNC bylaws that say that democrats who voted in the Republican primary would be barred from voting in a Democratic revote. That means that people who wanted to use their vote to act as spoilers in the Republican race by voting for Romney because they believed that a Democratic vote would not count would be barred from participating in this new revote. It would seem that these people would be more likely to vote for those who were not originally on the ballot, while Hillary's support would have voted for her as she WAS on the ballot.

Posted at March 19, 2008 1:32 PM in response to Even If Hillary Got Michigan Revote, It Probably Wouldn't Affect Overall Contest Much

I can see where you're coming from, absolutely.

I do have to admit, though, that the first mistake of foreign policy is assuming that the government structure of a country is an exact representation of the feelings of its people. If that was true, there would never be any uprisings, and every international action would go flawlessly.

I think we're just going to have to see, but I'm not giving up yet.

Posted at March 14, 2008 3:15 PM in response to "The Magic Is Over"; and A Request of Hillary Supporters

I think what he means by "magic" is what Joseph Nye would call "soft power," in which case it better damn well be a part of one's foreign policy. (It certainly was theoretically a part of Reagan's and Clinton's.)

Posted at March 14, 2008 1:03 PM in response to "The Magic Is Over"; and A Request of Hillary Supporters

Were you the stupid cock who told me I didn't have a right to copy off of your exam back in Blog 101?

Goddamn class. Thought it would be an easy A...

Posted at March 14, 2008 11:17 AM in response to Proper Etiquette

I had a similar experience with Samantha Power early in the campaign. When I found out that she was one of his foreign policy advisors, I started to think that maybe a.) he wasn't such a neophyte about foreign affairs to know that Sam Power is one brilliant chick and b.) it meant that he would not only be getting progressive foreign policy advice but that it would take into account American responsibilities toward global human rights. (So you can imagine how upset I am that she is no longer part of the campaign.)

Then, when I found out that Anthony Lake was also on the foreign policy team, I was sold. Not because I'm the biggest fan of Lake but because I know that Power takes him to task for his handling of the Rwanda mess. That they were working together seemed to me to be both a testament to Lake and Power's pragmatism towards foreign policy and Obama's management style, which seemed to value debate and conflicting voices to figure out the best position.

These kinds of things are very important, and I think you will find just as many people, if not more, were inspired by those whose opinions they trust and know to be intelligent as were those inspired by Obama's populist message and soaring rhetoric.

Thank you for sharing!

Posted at March 14, 2008 10:32 AM in response to Naomi Wolf on MSNBC

I commented when you posted this on my post here. I'd like to hear your thoughts:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/the-magic-is-over-and-a-reques.php

Posted at March 14, 2008 10:08 AM in response to Kouchner's call: the thrill has gone

I would agree with your belief in scaling down militarism and exceptionalism, but diplomatically disengaging and creating a "minimalist" foreign policy is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The last thing that the United States needs to do in a world in which the other regional hegemons have refused to engage in humanitarian crises and have pursued a much stricter national interest than we have is to draw back. I think that's the biggest danger stateside of the fallout from the Iraq war - Americans want to hide. But I would argue that this would be dangerous, and the EU, for all its continuing evolution, may not be a conceivable counterweight to the growing power (and irresponsibility) of China and India. (Oh, and Russia.) If anything, I think that America, (AND AMERICANS ESPECIALLY) need to engage in more diplomacy, more engagements abroad that are non-military in nature and multi-lateral with its allies, especially in the EU. We should be providing more physical and economic support of NGOs and developing relationships with those countries we have strained or unclear relationships with (especially in South America). Which is to say nothing of the continuing march of globalization, which essentially locks us into engagement with the world whether we (or the world) likes it or not. But I think that we will serve ourselves well to be out in the world, rather than receded from it.

Posted at March 14, 2008 9:53 AM in response to "The Magic Is Over"; and A Request of Hillary Supporters

I think its valuable to realize that culturally it is more difficult for modern Americans because we've been somewhat corrupted by the dangerous worldview that we are the most powerful country on Earth. While America is certainly a hegemon (though it's now arguable how much longer that will last), the psychological toll to being told that from the moment of birth creates a national mindset that I will admit it is difficult for Europeans to understand.

We may be taught that we are the most powerful country on Earth, but we don't want that power. We are terrified of the implications of our power. Americans cannot and will not, for their own psychological survival, recognize that they are directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths and displacements and human rights abuses of their government (even in a democratic republic!). You see it in all aspects of our culture - our low voter turnout, our isolation for world events, the subtle stigma that is put on "knowing too much", our obsession with art that is escapist rather than engaged... This is not to say that we don't believe that we have benefitted from our hegemonic nature but I would say that it is a profound mass reaction to our power that we choose not to think about it.

Obviously we can't keep going like this. We are going to have to take the reins, either through a populist domestic movement or by a concerted effort by leaders to instill a more international worldview in their citizens. But if Europeans especially want to engage with Americans, I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful that instead of seeing us all like cowboys, they see us more like abused damaged children, not guilty for the sins of our parents for whom socializing with the rest of the world will be difficult and requires a certain amount of patience. We are just as distrustful of the world because they are distrustful of us, partially because of how we've been raised but just as much because we fear, deep down, history's judgment for how our parents have acted.

This is all my opinion, of course. But I think it is a strain that definitely runs through my own younger generation.

Posted at March 14, 2008 9:41 AM in response to "The Magic Is Over"; and A Request of Hillary Supporters

CS is lucky he-she's transsexual. He-she would not be the number one recommended post without his-her gender ambivalence.

Posted at March 13, 2008 3:51 PM in response to Paterson Is Lucky He's Black and Blind