2008 US Election

Labor is not more friends with Republicans than with the Democrats. It's just Blair that was close to Bush.


You have to know that Sarkozy has his head way up the USA's ass on any issue. He knows he'll be able to lick the boots of the US president, wether it's McCain or Obama. If he preferes Obama, it's because he is a symbol of the American Dream and that gives Sarkozy a hard on.

When it comes to policies, the US left is so much to the right than the French left that Sarkozy can pick any US candidate without betraying his ideals. If he was from the French left he could never favor a republican.

Yeah but Labour has slided way towards the right wing under Tony Blair. When he comes to visit French politicians and participate in internal debates, he now visits our right wing, not the left one anymore.
Aside from Obama's call for affordable health care for every US citizen, I don't see what is more social than during the Clinton era.

I also don't see how a government offering (not imposing) a health care progam can be stamped as "not liberal". But that is another debate.


Ponrauil

@BeExcellent

That entire article has already been discussed here I think. She helped put Stevens behind bars, and the comish she fired was a wacko. It is funny though how much information is purposely left out regarding the candidates. I suppose it is due which side the author favors, democrat or republican.

All your points are just some minor explanation for why things are as they are. I could come up with my petite anecdotes which would prove some of your points wrong but that's not what I am trying to say. My main point is that international politics are simply different. Nobody gives a damn about leftist or rightists running one country and this is what you say with your post as well. Yeah, it might hit your ideological ego, but in the end you do what you need to do. And there's plenty of examples even including your French socialists. First name in my mind is Miterrand who was quite good friends with Reagan up until the late 80s when Miterrand had a slightly different view on the collapse of the USSR than the rest.

However, for somebody who is deeply neo-liberal in his thinking, I tend to hope and believe that having governments with a free-market approach, they will bring about some economic improvements, no matter if they like each other or not, for whatever reason some of which you pointed out, and some of which I have.

As regarding the Democrats, there's enough to discuss to fill up a whole new thread (taxation alone is enough actually), but I'll be off to drinking myslelf numb right now. I love CLUJ

im fully aware it's chauvanistic but we've been socially programme to regard the female as the lynchpin in the family unit especially with regards to the raising of children. i just don't think it's particularly savvy for a women with 5 non adult children (including a disabled infant) to be going after such a job.

if you're going to preach about family values then you have to put your family 1st even if it means giving up such a big opportunity in order to fulfil your parental duties.

But why is it not 'savvy' for women to do so where no one would complain if we were talking about a man, Jim. Just because you're socially programmed to do so?

Because whatever you would like it to be, the reality is that western women do play a larger role in the upbringing of children than men.

Do you have any sources for this?

This is the first time I hear that anybody in the world opposes Obama and never by anybody in Germany where he has an outrageous level of support.

I'd be interested to read these oppositions.


Unlike McCain, Obama is pro-talk. McCain is pro-war and long live america. It's clear what non-american countries would prefer. However, at the end of the day, Merkel will always be friends with the US leadership - no matter their name, party, or morals.

whow, whow, whow, let's not swing from one extreme to the other!

Palin did NOT help put Stevens behind bars. For one, Stevens is NOT behind bar and has not been convicted. He has been indicted, but not convicted.

Palin has always shown great support for Ted Stevens and still does. She has never publicly critized Stevens for his corruption and to this day speaks highly of him publicly.

It is not known if she will or will not endorse him for the senate race this year. The fact that she has not publicly denounced herself from one of the most corrupt politicians in her state makes me wonder how much of a renegade she truly is and how much of 'one hand washes another' goes on (which is only business as usual in politics).

Btw, Stevens helped her become governor. The same Stevens that has very recently been indicted for corruption and the same Stevens that a year or so ago described the world wide web as a system of tubes!!! Yep.

be excellent covered it.

yes it is mainly because we're socially programmed to think women = child raiser and man = breadwinner.

i'm fully aware that status quo is now defunk but it wasn't that long ago historically speaking that this was still most certainly the case.

That's actually dodging the question, isn't it?

If you *know* that it has -socially- grown in a way that women play that larger role, and thus you *know* men should be able to raise kids as well as women can, then why is it not 'savvy' for the women to have a demanding job, whereas it's still ok for men?

I fail to understand how modern men can still think in such an old-fashioned manner.