Dole Group

This piece talks about why the South continues to be extremely conservative politically. I've never been to the South and have always wondered what's going on with the political conservative climate, because it seems to me that conservative economic policy actually hurts a lot of regions in the South. These "Room for Debate" pieces on the NY Times are awesome, because they provide a lot of different perspectives. I'd love to hear all your guys take on this: San Franciscans and Atlanta peeps alike.

Great post Eli. I think this article makes many valid points because in the south, the conservative history is very apparent. Being from Georgia especially during election, President Obama is not widely respected and people often criticize his policies harshly. I hate to say it but I do believe that racist southern ideals are partially the reason for some of the unpopularity of Obama in the south. Relating to the conservative tendencies in southern states, I believe the reason the south has remained predominantly right sided is because tradition is such a big part of southern culture, and with southern tradition comes conservative values.

For me this brings up evidence to support people not being able to move past their moral compass even if it means progress in their socioeconomic outlook and progress in the nation. It makes sense to stay true to their self, but it is not justifiable to hurt yourself and your nation by preventing forward progress. In theory it makes sense to try and change their minds, but it is a lot easier said than done and would take a great amount of time and we have to be patient about it.

This is an article by a conservative columnist, Pat Buchanan, that my dad turned me on to. It addresses the fact that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration allegedly knew about the attacks in Benghazi for a while and didn't take action. I do think that the administration mishandled it, and I think it's interesting to read the conservative perspective on the attacks. I think this is a direction that Romney's rhetoric is going to take in the coming weeks, especially during the foreign policy debate. I agree with what this writer says about many liberals wanting to absolve Obama and his administration from all blame for anything, especially at this stage in the election, and I think that reading articles from both sides of the argument will help form an objective understanding of the issue.

I completely agree that there was some sort of intelligence gap in the State Department. Whether or not Obama/Biden knew is open for debate, but I'm not sure that is really important. In reality, both candidates have pretty similar foreign policy stances. I highly doubt the Romney Administration would handle embassy security any differently. We saw it in the VP debate. Biden would challenge Ryan to talk about actual differences in foreign policy and Ryan couldn't really find any. I'm really bothered by this statement, "And lest we forget, we invaded Afghanistan to eradicate al-Qaida after 9/11. Yet today, we read of al-Qaida in the Maghreb, al-Qaida in Iraq, al-Qaida in Pakistan, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Qaida in Syria. And Ansar Dine, an al-Qaida affiliate, has taken over northern Mali, a slice of land the size of France." This is a huge exaggeration of Al-Qaida's current power. They are doing really poorly, not well. I think that it is just a political tactic to relate America somehow being unsafe to the attack in Libya.

Today Hilary Clinton tried to take responsibility for the lack of security in Libya. John and Cody are right about this being the beginning of the Republican attack on Obama's foreign policy. This morning I heard a Romney advisor talking about how little influence and control we have in the middle east in the face of rising terrorism. His examples and questions included many cited in Buchanan's editorial. Buchanan was an early advisor to Nixon and encouraged him to stand against abortion even though it was different than Nixon's original view. It seems like Buchanan is a lot like Carl Rove, finds a weakness and an opening and goes for it.

I really enjoyed this article going through examples of past Vice Presidential debates. The fact that Vice Presidential debates mean so little for the actual campaigns but can really affect the career of a potential Vice President is a little off-putting. While I understand how people like to focus on the big names, Romney and Obama, the importance of their running mate should not be disregarded. If the President really "leads the free world" or at least has such influence over the United States, then it is obvious that the Vice President has influence as well and if something were to happen to the President, they would be in charge. If the candidates' performance in the debate can make or ruin a career, as detailed in this article, their actions should also be considered through the lens of being a President.

I hadn't thought of it like that, Mabel. I have always had a sense that a VP is crucial behind the scenes, but rarely a very prominent public figure. During Obama's term, I heard almost nothing about Biden, although I remember Cheney being a much bigger deal the eight years before that. I agree that how debate is downplayed is a little disappointing, especially in the way that the author's last few sentences turned out to be right: it would have taken an enormous upset or incredible performance for the VP debate to have any impact on the campaigns whatsoever. From what I can tell, this turned out to be true. Like Eli said in class, everyone pretty much agrees that it was a draw, and that Biden and Ryan basically filled the roles assigned to them. It bums me out how little it seemed to matter.

This article describes Romney's "demographic bind," which has him falling seriously behind in the non-white vote. The Latino and black electorate, the author describes, have begun the process of making strictly red states (like Georgia) into possibly competitive areas of the country in the future. The author points to the 2008 election, when McCain won a safe majority of America's white vote while Obama won 66% of the Latino vote and a whopping 95% of the black vote, as a signal for two different strategies for Romney. On the one hand, he can and is trying to woo thee Latino vote in states like Nevada and Florida (the RNC had really concrete evidence of this in its choice of speakers). Second, and a little more frightening, he can concentrate his efforts on winning an even greater majority of the white electorate. This is a significant challenge, because it would mean a serious effort at reconciling the generally more socially liberal views of white youth with the social conservatism of the Republican Party's. In the case of immigration reform, embracing a more liberal position would be a win-win for Romney: he could win a greater share of the Latino electorate, among which immigration is a serious concern, and a greater percentage of the younger, more socially liberal white vote that has traditionally voted Democrat. This would almost certainly come with consequences among older and less educated white voters, who would see immigration reform like this as a threat to legitimate control of illegal immigration in the future. Of the two, trying to expand the portion of the white vote seems like the losing option. While the example of immigration reform I mentioned could be a place for compromise, I have trouble seeing how Romney or a future Republican candidate could champion a pro-life and pro-choice stance at the same time, for instance. Rather than focusing on incredibly divisive issues, trying to appeal to the Latino electorate seems like a wiser choice. For Romn

The Obama Campaign finally responds to the attacks made by Romney about his inability to "keep America safe". This post is important because Romney attacks Obama's National Security during his term in office, claiming Obama did not do a good job of keeping Americans safe.

The comment that the author cites from adviser Michèle Flournoy, that Romney has "no credibility since he's been both for and against our Libya policy," seems like a strong tactic for Obama to be using. This can't be the only aspect of Romney's foreign policy stances that the President could target as not very resolute. The other thing I can't help but think about whenever foreign policy is brought up during the debates is the unequal position the two candidates are in. The claim that you cite Romney making, that Obama has failed to "keep America safe," is an impossible claim for Obama to make about Romney. He has had no substantial hand in foreign policy as governor of Massachusetts. His foreign policy record is made up of things he has said, while Obama's is made up of things he has done and real circumstances he has led the country in. He has much more to criticize by default. In this way, I don't see accusations by Romney or defenses by Obama as that informative during debates and campaigning.

This article exposes how few candidates who run for office are from blue collar backgrounds even though most of the electorate are not white collar workers . Although I think so many election related articles focus too much on who the candidates are and not what specific policies and plans they have, the statistics and the implications Nicholas Carnes exposes are worth considering. With 90 million blue collar workers in this country, is it possible that not one former blue collar worker is qualified to run for office? He can only give two example of former blue collar workers who have been elected to federal offices. I agree with him that where you come from must influence your priorities and this means that important experiences are not being represented. Carnes says that it's unclear why this discrepancy is so huge. It could be campaign money, free-time, or party gatekeepers. Citizen United could only have made this discrepancy and the possibility of fixing it worse. Some possible solutions could include required public financing of elections, strict spending limits, and a very short election season. I wonder whether someone who tried to run for office and was be clearly cut out of the process because of job related time constraints and lack of funding could argue that his civil rights were denied. Has this been argued before?

I disagree, Cameron, mainly because of the staggering disconnection I see a lot of the time between Presidents and the people they hope to serve. Obama and Romney both try to play up their connection to the middle class. I see this as a performance, but the emphasis they put on it certainly makes it seem like an essential quality of an elected official. If blue collar workers ran and were elected, an authentic connection to the way policies play out for a huge part of our population might be possible. You seem to suggest in your article that no blue collar workers are as qualified as those with white collar backgrounds. The article suggests that, if even a fraction of a percent of the working-class population were qualified, if office "suited them," as you put it, they would "fill every seat in Congress and in every state legislature more than 40 times." No one is saying that only blue-collar workers should be elected, but it doesn't seem fair to attribute this discrepancy to every blue collar worker "not knowing as much about politics" as his or her white collar counterpart.

It seems like having wealthy politicians is just natural. Politicians have to be educated and ambitious, and someone who is both of those things typically isn't a blue-collar worker. The world of politics is also really based on connections, some through family and some though college (Harvard law for Obama) and it makes sense that most of those connections would go to the wealthy. Honestly, this article seems like it's raising kind of a silly point. Sure, there are blue collar workers who absolutely have the intelligence necessary to be president. But the educated tend to be wealthy, and so do the ambitious.

As the election approaches, each candidate is doing anything in his power to obtain more votes. In Colorado,Florida and Nevada the Latino voting population could possibly determine who wins the 2012 election. President Obama has a "leg up" on Romney with the Latino voters, but will Romney be able to do anything to make himself more appealing to Latino voters? If not, how devastating will the outcome be for his campaign?

They are chasing the latino votes, definitely. Their discussion of this in the last debate was interesting - Obama accused Romney of considering the Arizona immigration law as a "model for the country," which as far as I can tell just isn't true. Who knows with Romney, though - he certainly has been associating with the guy who designed that law. In response to John's point, I think the Romney campaign is kind of forced to stick to the economic aspects of gender discrimination and Hispanic issues. The fact is that the Republican party has a worse record on rights for minorities, so they're playing up their statement that the improved economy under Romney would help get rid of the gender/racial inequities in the country.

It's clear now that the Republicans have a serious problem with Latino support. I wonder how they will deal with this problem in the future. I think bipartisan immigration reform could be a big deal. I see that being the big issues in the next couple years. It seems like demographically, if the Republicans can't get any support from people of color, are going to have an issue as Latinos are the largest growing population in America.

We have spent a lot of time on this group talking about the bias of particular news-sources, particularly the New York Times. It is interesting to look at more straight-forward endorsements that the paper makes and go back through history to see who else the paper has supported, seeing the first endorsement of Lincoln to their current one for Obama is particularly astounding, considering how often Obama references Lincoln in his speeches. Though most papers try to maintain some bipartisanship, when they do make their political allegiances clear they send a powerful message. I wonder how much influence their endorsements make, especially if they are already a left-leaning or heavily conservative paper and their readership is similarly aligned. But with a paper as widespread and respected as the New York Times, I am sure it has some influence on undecided voters.

I wonder as I look through the changing parties in the endorsements how much it indicates changes in the Democratic and Republican parties and how much it reflects editorial changes. Early on the paper endorsed many Republicans and haven't for many years recently. It was particularly interesting to see how many times they endorsed candidates running against FDR. I would have imagined that the editors of today's paper would have endorsed him during each election.

Cody, I don't think it has much to do with "endorsing along party line" as it has to do with the fact that the editors for the NY times tend to be liberal. I don't think they are just like "oh, we'll support the Democrat." I'm sure it has more to do with the policies and beliefs of the candidates and those beliefs and policies that align with the NY Times tend to be Democratic candidates. I also don't mean to be foolish here, but it seems like liberal policies have worked for the most part. Whenever we here about another era in America, it always harkens back to times with bigger government, higher taxes.

Here is a piece around abortion issues and the problem with the term "pro-life". The author states "Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected - not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life.". We have talked about the terrible applications of terms pro-life and pro-choice, it should be pro-choice or no-choice. The problem with the conservatives and tea party is that on one hand they want as small as government as possible, but on the other hand they want to take away or our basic right to freedom of choice. 

While I agree with Cody that Friedman's cockiness can be difficult to read, I personally agree with what he is saying. I think there is a problem in the this country with respecting the scientific community. How can people still doubt climate change? The data is there. How can people really think it is a good thing to allow people to carry weapons? The murders are there. While I think this is a potentially divisive way of stating the issue, some of the far right opinions on abortion, gun rights, and climate change seem equally as absurd to me. There is a lot of good that can come out of conservatism, but the conservatism around rights, I don't think is very productive and people will eventually look back on it and scoff.

I am also interested in the role of language here, both within the actual issue and in this piece, and what you mentioned, Eli, about how people maintain their viewpoints that are continually in opposition to almost undeniable facts. With both issues it seems that unspoken rules and assumptions carry such weight. It mostly just confuses me.

This article is from the website of a conservative think tank, The Manhattan Institute. It's interesting to read a conservative criticize Romney for being out of touch with the American people when he focuses his economic argument on only the "four sore years" of the Obama administration. She highlights the number of times Romney referred to 4 years during the debate missing his opportunity to acknowledge that Americans know that the economy crashed well before 2009. She aptly states that Americans remember well the "white as a ghost" President Bush, "the panicked Congress", the "helpless" GOP standard bearer, McCain. She also points out that Americans are feeling like we already hit bottom and that it's not the time to focus only on the negative. Given that she seems more nuanced in her thinking, I was particularly interested to read her criticisms of Obama's reaction to the financial crisis, especially, according to her, his missed opportunity to encourage states to fix their pension and benefit problems, by bailing them out temporarily with the stimulus money.

I am glad you posted this, as it offers a different type of critique of Romney. I read an essay like this from another conservative think tank criticizing Romney's energy policies and they both have expanded my perspective, it seems that more disparaging reviews of candidates from within their parties are more productive. It's interesting to consider what Romney would be like as a more positive candidate and how he might end up like an Obama from 2008. The benefits of an optimistic, or at least more constructive, campaign are great. This article also highlights something which comes up a lot for me when thinking about the election, in which candidates really under-estimate their constituencies' intelligence. There is definitely a difference between selling the perspective you want to use to win and ignoring the reality of what people know.

After the election, it's pretty clear that "four sore years" didn't work. I wonder if there was really much else Romney could have focused on. I think Romney dug himself more holes than he holes he really dug for Obama. There were Republican governors running for reelection talking about how great the economy was while Romney was running for president talking about how bad it was. It really shows how you can spin a situation any way to suit you.

This article spoke to what I thought about the presidential debate. I would be really interested to hear what the candidates had to say about the Euro-zone crisis or other real issues, but they were forced to tailor their comments to appealing to people in Ohio and other swing states. Classic American political system messing up real conversations from taking place.

I noticed the same thing Eli and also become frustrated when politicians' definition of foreign policy is dominated by historical problem countries in the Middle East. It's especially confusing considering that situations in Europe can be more relevant to the US' economic situation and future and that America really has little power when it comes to influencing the Middle East. I don't know a lot about the Euro-zone and I think that really relates to how little politicians bring it up, the problem is cyclical, if people don't talk about Europe, not a lot of people will know about it, and if few people know about Europe, politicians aren't going to want to talk about it... It's not that productive.

It does seem like the debate and most of the election focused on foreign policy issues that involve controversies about trade, oil, and military intervention. The broader issues that effect the world like climate change, nuclear proliferation and the economic troubles in Europe are not as compelling.

There has been a lot of talk around this election that has been about how bad Obama's term has been. People are always so negative when it comes to polotics and when something does not work right away they jump to conclusions. Here is an article about something positive that Obama has been doing. It is nice to see evidence of success from Obama's term. With four more years he could do a lot of good for this country and its future.

I agree with John. I cannot remember any talk about Race to the Top or the Clean Car program in a debate or a commercial. When you consider that voters think education is an important issue, certainly not as important as the economy and jobs, but very important, it seems like Obama's campaign should have highlighted this success. Race to the Top involves policies that reflect many of the same ideas given by the Republicans and is pretty controversial with the Teacher's Union. That may be why they haven't brought it up. I wonder how the auto-workers and the automobile industry feel about the Clean Car program. It may have been that these programs were not supported by important, Democratic groups.

I read an interesting piece on environmental sustainability being actually cost effective. It talked about how Regan go people on board to confront the holes in the ozone layer by talking about the economic impacts of more people getting skin cancer with such a thin ozone layer. I think the climate change debate has the potential to go in that direction. Storms like Hurricane Sandy cost the economy tremendously, and it is pretty clear that storms of that proportion are happening due to climate change. I think the economic impact of climate change could certainly change the debate. Maybe Obama should go in that direction.

I watched the debate last night and I could not help but feel sorry for Romney and every other presidential candidate that has had to debate the president on foreign policy. Obama had a distinct advantage in the fact that he has done things, where Romney never had that power. So, even if Romney had good points, Obama had past experience. Regardless, I think it was a good debate and I liked how Romney appeared to the public and didn't resort to petty needling.

Cameron, your point is interesting to me because I can imagine it going both ways: while Romney does not have the past experience of a foreign policy record as the governor of Massachusetts, that also means he has no record for people to criticize. For instance, he can berate Obama for his failings in the Benghazi attack without any fear of a similar criticism from the President himself. In this sense, I feel that a debate on foreign policy means pitting what Obama has actually done against what Romney says he will do. Romney can say basically whatever he wants, and this is the substitute for his foreign policy. During the rest of the campaign, I feel like we've seen the side I imagine playing out. During the debate, I agree with Cameron and Jonah that this dynamic was in Obama's favor.

Cameron, that whole comment about "you woud say what I said, only louder" is due to the fact that they have essentially the same foreign policy when it come to the Middle East. Even thought Obama definitely had an advantage, Romney was at even more of a disadvantage, because he has the same platforms as Obama. It's hard for Romney to say, look, Obama is doing a bad job, but I have the same policy, so vote for me.

This article highlights the significance of the Benghazi attacks for Obama as the foreign policy debate looms in his future. The author presents the developments to the story in manner sympathetic to Obama, pointing to the difference between "spontaneous" and "opportunistic" in the description of the attack and the "fog of war" Hilary Clinton has used to describe the evolution of the intelligence information. The author also selects the specific points that have become "politically petty": the vocabulary used in the initial attack, whether "terror" was meant in a general way by Obama or specifically geared toward the murder of the ambassador. A new development I hadn't heard about involves House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, who endangered the lives of several Libyans by releasing information about their work for the US government at the Embassy. The Benghazi discussion is fascinating to me in a train-wreck sort of way: I agree with what Dan said in class about it basically being a non-issue, and has digressed into the candidates bashing each other on things that have nothing to do with the violence itself. In my opinion, one of two things should be happening: Romney and media outlets should either accuse Obama of deliberately covering up a terrorist attack if that's what they think happened, or they should drop the Benghazi issue if they recognize that extremely complicated events on the other side of the planet evolve over time instead of being obvious immediately. Topics like Obama's drone strike program and Romney's Iran prospects are really substantive and should be talked about at length, but rehashing Benghazi over and over again seems like a distraction from a broader foreign policy debate to me. In the end, I don't feel like the article really answered the question it set forth (why Obama is being attacked on what many consider to be a non-issue). In my opinion, Romney and eager media outlets are looking for a campaign game-changer where ther

Yeah, this was a huge non-issue that I think had no effect on the election whatsoever. Whether or not Romney did a good job of hitting Obama on it, after the debate in which Candy Crowley stepped in, the issue was over. I really didn't think this would be a big deal in the election, and sure enough, it wasn't.

I know the election is over and all, but I just got back from a Speech and Debate Tournament where my debate topic was foreign policy. This subject came up a lot, as I was arguing against the current policy, and it was very effective so I can see why this topic is still dogging Obama. Overall I think the foreign policy is bad and think it should be changed.

I think that looking at the historical economical failures and successes of democratic and republican economic policies is a good way to come to a conclusion about which candidate would actually help the economy. The candidates themselves are just spewing rhetoric about tax cuts and the middle class, so this third party analysis of economic growth under Democrats vs. Republicans is really interesting. Check it out.

It is sometimes extremely hard for me to understand the argument for conservative economic philosophies, because while they might seem great paper, have NEVER worked. "Trickle down" economics tend to stagnate the economy, not help it. While I definitely read a lot of liberally biased news sources, I still find that unbiased analysis of economic policy points to liberal policies almost every time. Jonah, if a person is still undecided, I would say they are definitely not going to vote on social issues. If social issues were more important to them than the economy, they would absolutely have already decided who to cast their vote for. It is very clear where the candidates stand on social issues, but is much less clear to the average undecided voter who is "the best candidate to help the economy."

It's great to see the economic facts laid out in this way. I read an article earlier written by two economists who quantified the effect of tax increases on the wealthy and found that tax increases had little effect on job growth or the economy. Again, this article proves that "trickle down" economics isn't based on facts. I wonder why it is so compelling. Of course people would rather believe that independent investment would benefit the economy more than government investment. It's part of the American mythology. The only way to bust a myth is with facts like these.

This article discusses Obama's presidency in terms of the racial legacy he leaves behind and the front he presents to the public as well as his inner-struggle to grapple with his own race. The idea that Obama has become increasingly comfortable as the first black president, but is still strapped down by the unspoken rules about how he campaigns and supports African Americans is especially relevant to the election. I wonder what prejudice and assumptions Obama is able to deal with in 2012 that he would have struggled with in 2008, given the more serious air that he didn't have then. The boundaries Obama must abide by in order to not seem like he is giving favors to his own race are exceedingly limited and the pull he feels to leave a strong, aware legacy but to also normalize the situation is convoluted and difficult. This article talks about how Obama's public discussion of race basically mirrors his internal understanding and relationship with his racial identity and that in many ways he "feels boxed in by his blackness," an idea I am really curious about. I have read a lot about how Obama's presidency is not the indication of the post-racial society many thought it would be, but is actually a sign that the country is moving in a positive direction and this article reminds me that the expectations many carry for Obama make it difficult for him to naturally find his place as an African American and in history. Also, for those who watched The Choice, this piece is especially interesting in the context of Obama's early life.

I liked this article I thought it brought up good points. Reading it thought I realized I have never really thought of Obama as the first black president, aside from when he was elected in 2008. I view him as just another president, which is a hard thing to do for a lot of people in the country. Four years (or eight if reelected) is not nearly enough time to break down those racial barriers because these things take time. No matter how long this takes and no matter how much grief he gets for potentially being bias to African Americans Obama being elected is a step forward for this nation and four more years is only going to help more. "We have to deal with the specific problems of different groups - blacks, women, gays and lesbians, immigrants - in a way that doesn't allow people to put these wedges in,". I think that quote by Obama is the reason why he should be president for another four years. He is attempting to make us even more united as a nation and I 100% respect and support that. "To blacks who accuse him of not being aggressive on race, Mr. Obama has a reply: "I'm not the president of black America," he has said. "I'm the president of the United States of America." ".

Mabel, I agree with what you're saying about the efforts he has to go through to not "favor his own race," and I'm particularly interested in how this interacts with the presidential race and the fact that the majority of black American's are likely to vote for him. In that sense, he is not obligated to woo them in the same way that he is courting the Latino vote in Nevada, Florida, etc. I totally agree with the writing you mention that suggests Obama's election isn't the sign of a post-racial society. Frankly, claims like that seem like a shallow and easy way to treat racial discrimination as if it isn't a problem in the US. In that sense I agree with Jonah: it will take a very long time, and a very, very easy way to stall the progress on racial issues entirely is to pretend like they aren't a big deal. This is specifically where I wonder if Obama could do more. Embracing his racial identity in the moments where it is easiest (like the meetings with leaders, etc.) would be a good step.

I believe that the biggest part of this election is in the social and civil rights issues. This article outlines the effects of a Romney win or Obama win on the Supreme Court. One of the fews direct powers a president has is appointing new Supreme Court Justices when one retires.With with four of the nine members over the age of 70 there is a high likelihood of a few retiring in the next for years. If Romney wins he will most likely appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court and that would threaten the Roe v. Wade decision in turn effecting the rights of women. There has been lots of talk about economic issues and the impact of the new president on the economy, but I believe that this issue of appointing Supreme Court Justices is far more important and basic civil rights could potentially be threatened as a result of the election

I agree that it is important to make the connection between the election of a new president and their effect on the Supreme Court. Even though the members elected might not have a huge effect on economic issues that have dominated the election, the impact the Supreme Court will have on individuals' rights is great.

I agree that this is an important issue, but I just can't see Roe V. Wade every being overturned, yet maybe I'm totally wrong. It seems just so irrational. Luckily, we won't have to deal with this problem...

This editorial written by Danielle Pletka, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute criticizes Romney's foreign policy speech on Monday October 8th for offering little in the way of either vision or specifics to separate himself from Obama. Plettka writes that Romney, "sensed an opening" in foreign policy after the Obama administration appeared to bungle the September 11 Libyan attack. She says that Romney needs to show voters that "he's not simply George Bush retread" itching to declare war on Iran and Syria. It is interesting that this conservative thinks that no Republicans have made a case that they will actually do anything differently than Obama. She suggests that Romney help voters connect American global power with prosperity, its dominance of the world's important waterways with flourishing trade and the exporting of democratic ideals with more open "nourished markets. She refers to the importance of the US's "benign" influence since WWII. Look up benign..it doesn't mean the war, death and violence we seen in Iraq and Afghanistan . What she means is that the U.S. has never interfered for 'malevolent" reasons. It's hard to imagine how the US would be perceived as benign in all of the military intervention.

This article shows pretty well a lot of what we've seen of Romney. It seems like his campaign is just based on criticizing Obama, and since there's an opening in the foreign policy area he's moved away from the economy. He's looking for criticisms to make without offering substantive policy proposals, and I think that's because Obama's policies are basically centrist policies. It's a weird situation that Obama, as a moderate, has this unique ability to inspire so much vitriol among the conservative right, and Romney's trying to capitalize.

I'm in the foreign policy group for the issues project at school, and I can tell you with certainty that the differences between Obama and Romney in terms of foreign policy are very small. It is more of a philosophical difference. In reality, the troops will leave Afghanistan in 2014, we will most likely not send troops to Syria or Iran, and we will continue to support Israel, regardless of who is president. Romney is really just trying to create a contrast between his foreign policy and Obama's, but there aren't any major differences, so he has latched onto this whole Libya thing.