Obama says he's conflicted on Olympics

[cornermouse]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23916733/

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama said he is conflicted about whether the U.S. should be a full participant in this summer's Olympics in Beijing because of China's human rights record.

"I am of two minds about this," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in an interview aired Wednesday on CBS' "The Early Show." "On the one hand, I think that what has happened in Tibet, China's support for the Sudanese government in Darfur, is a real problem."

Still, Obama said, "I am hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together." Obama also expressed concern about Chinese trade practices.

"I am a strong believer in free trade, but I think that we have not been very savvy negotiators when it comes to China," Obama said. "I think they've played us. They definitely are stealing our intellectual property, and that has direct consequences in terms of the bottom lines for businesses here in the United States."
*********************

Can you say "fence straddling"? No? How about trying to have your cake and eat it too? Why did he deflect the question from participating in the Olympics to one of trade? And why didn't he call for Bush to boycott the Olympics? Where's the hope and change in this?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. I don't think it's unreasonable

I'm of two minds about it, too. I think many people are.

[merh]

31. I agree with you

and please ignore those who want to fight or slam just for the fun of it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

52. Yeah, I posted as much yesterday.

Although again, I have to give Clinton big time credit for sticking her neck out there.

[tishaLA]

59. I agree

I did a Zogby poll this past weekend and, although I started off firmly in favor of world leaders staying away from the opening ceremonies, the further I went in the poll, the more I became convinced of how difficult this situation is, particularly for the US, in terms of the global economy/American debt. I also doubt demonstrating our displeasure with China's human rights record--particularly when ours is so bad--would effect any change from the Chinese government.

[Maven]

76. I agree

I don't see anything really wrong with the answer.

[ShaneGR]

101. I've never understood the concept behind boycotting Olympics

First off, the only real people who get punished by such an action are the athletes.

The second problem I have with boycotting is that the Olympics actually open up closed societies to the outside world. China can't exactly hide when they let a couple thousand foreign journalists into the country.

[Hope And Change]

2. I agee with Obama on this one...

opps I forgot that I`m under snipefire while writing this post.


:rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

7. ah, more hope

Nothing about this thread has anything to do with Clinton, but you have to take a shot. I really think it's a sickness.

[redqueen]

55. Did you not recognize the stuff in the OP

as attempting to negatively compare Obama's answers to Clinton's statement?

[Bake]

64. I saw no reference to Cllinton at all in the OP

Nor any attempt to compare Obama's position(s) to Clinton's. There was some critique of Obama's position(s).

The contrast, however, is pretty stark.

Bake

[redqueen]

70. So because you don't see the word "Clinton", you

prefer to pretend the "stark contrast" you recognize is showing Obama's thoughtful, nuanced response as contrasted against what... Mickey Mouse's?

:wtf:

[11 Bravo]

93. Isn't it amazing how many are willing to publicly display their pathology?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maven]

77. Unnecessary and stupid.

[cooolandrew]

3. Basically we can't alienate China it's not smart especially when we try to curb co2...

Besides who is the rest of the western world to talk on human rights. I disagree with somethings that have gone on over there, but ultimately we will have to work with them on green issues. Also I agree olympics do highlight how the world should settle differences via sport and grace than harm and fire.

[JI7]

4. because it can be hypocritical to support trade with them while calling for boycott

of opening of olympics.

i think the best is what is happening now with people around the world protesting themselves.

[blogslut]

5. The Olympics were intended to be a non-political event

Don't get me wrong, any good idea gets polluted. Just the same, the Olympics allow the world to see great atheletes from every participating country. The Games are supposed to be a celebration of human physical endeavor, regardless of country or allegiance.

I agree, what China is doing to Tibetan protestors is horrid but, because the Olympic Games are being held there this year, the whole world is watching. Shining light on cockroaches and all that.

[JCMach1]

14. Tell that to Adolf and Leni

[damonm]

92. Godwin alert!

[ShaneGR]

102. Except because we went we got to see just how screwed up they were....

I've always been convinced that if we hadn't boycotted the 1980 Olympics, the wall would have fallen faster.

[democrattotheend]

20. I'm inclined to agree with you

Although I am torn about it too. I don't see what's wrong with Obama admitting that he's genuinely torn...that sounds human to me.

[MethuenProgressive]

43. "non-political event"? Then why are teams divided up by Nation?

The Olympics are *all* about politics. That's why China wanted them.

[JCMach1]

97. Exactly...

[weezy2736]

6. ...

You ask "And why didn't he call for Bush to boycott the Olympics?"

Obama answered "I am hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together."

What's the big deal about this, anyway? I think it's a stupid idea to boycott, personally, given how tedious things are with China right now. Human rights is a huge issue, granted, but I've always been a fan of choosing my battles carefully, and there are many ways this can backfire with a very low probability of actually changing anything.

Change takes time. I'd rather work directly with a country and have human rights standards be part of trade agreements.

[alphafemale]

8. Just see how successful that Moscow game boycott was.

That was a joke. It's not supposed to be about politics.

I really wish it wasn't in China. But it is about the athletes.

And Micky D's giving away free food. ...kidding....mostly.

[JI7]

10. yes, but i do support and like the people who are protesting

right now during the torch run and other ceremonies and events. if just regular people like us can come out and just show support for the people of Tibet and others in china whose rights are being abused it might do more than someone like Bush not attending the games .

[rodeodance]

46. Pay attention--Hillary and Pelosi are talking opening ceremonies ONLY.

Just see how successful that Moscow game boycott was.
Posted by alphafemale


That was a joke. It's not supposed to be about politics.

I really wish it wasn't in China. But it is about the athletes.

And Micky D's giving away free food. ...kidding....mostly.

[TheDonkey]

9. Calling for Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies does what? Oh yes that's right... shit

I do not understand this argument. So what if Bush doesn't show up in 2008. Does China give a flying ****? Do things actually change? I don't think so. But at least we can sit back and feel like we've done something (but we really haven't).

I can understand not wanting to make the Olympics be a political stage but I just do not understand how boycotting the opening ceremonies makes a difference.

[Mooney]

39. Bush not showing up is more of a reward than it is a boycott.

If we really want to punish them, we should send President Shit-For-Brains and have him make a 30 minute speech. An entire nation of one billion people will simultaneously fall to the ground with their fingers in their ears, screaming "Make it stop!"

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Bush should go and exchange his customary flag lapel pin for one of the Statue of Liberty

Except any closeups should reveal that, oops, it was the Tiananmen Square incarnation.

[JCMach1]

12. Douse the torch now... it's the right thing to do`

Anyone else notice the non-athletes escorting the torch everywhere= Chinese security forces/agents...

We have allowed them into the U.S. as if it were nothing... :(

[MrSlayer]

13. I don't care about the Olympics.

We've got a lot of balls talking about a boycott when you consider the Iraq war and the Yoo report.

[flor de jasmim]

15. One person's fence-stradding is another person's ability to see a complex world.

Obama knows the "in" thing to do is boycott, but when you boycott, you also shut down meaningful dialogue.

I say YIPPEE for someone who stops to think instead of having a knee-jerk reaction. We have TIME before the ceremony to make a considered opinion.

[democrattotheend]

22. I agree

I respect a politician who is willing to say they are genuinely torn. That's better, IMO, than taking a stand that is so nuanced that it really is trying to straddle both sides of a fence while claiming to be consistent.

[DerekJ]

16. I will say it again: Get your bloody human rights mess fixed first, before you lecture other

countries about it ..

:grr:

[ima_sinnic]

17. how about having your cake & eating it too in Colombia?

I'm guessing that you're implying that HRC's "firm stand" (heh heh) on the Olympics is the superior stand?
But has she called for ending "most favored trading partner" or "free trade" altogether with China?
a boycott of the Olympics--BIG FUCKING WHOOP!

where is her "concern" for the missing, the disappeared, the tortured and murdered of Colombia?
She "made a stand" by "opposing" free trade with Colombia while, with a wink and a nod, those in her inner circle are among the biggest proponents of that "free trade." She does not distance herself from the likes of Mark Penn and the others--no, she is among the beneficiaries of their efforts. She has blood on her hands, lots and lots of blood, and is a calculating, disgusting, hypocritical, LYING, GREEDY and pathetic excuse of a human being.

where's the change? you mean, treating the issue of China, its trade relations with us, our indebtedness to them, its human right record, and our human rights record as a complex issue that can't be resolved by the copout of a "boycott" isn't a change?

pffft!

[shayes51]

18. Thanks for posting.

But as you know, Jesus (aka Obama) can do no wrong.

[Tellurian]

27. Obama is doing what he always does- voting "present" when he's torn..

Indecisiveness is not a leadership quality.

[Cha]

74. This coming from a hilary supporter who

obviously condones her lying about her Bosnian Sniper adventure and all her other lies that are adding up to one disturbed candidate..so you have no room to lecture on why Obama supporters find him refreshing.

Why Hillary’s Lies are Important

By - March 24, 2008, 9:53PM
Hillary Clinton has been caught in a series of lies and misrepresentations during the primary campaign. To some of her supporters, these lies may seem trivial and insignificant and even politics-as-usual. However, please consider the serious impact of these lies by placing them in the context of the past seven years of the Bush Administration and the legacy of expanded executive power that he leaves behind. In particular, consider the dangerous message that the Clinton campaign sends by employing similar tactics to achieve her political goals.

1. The Florida and Michigan Primaries / The Delegate Count
Hillary agreed to honor the DNC’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates after their primaries were moved up into January in express violation of the DNC rules. She did not change her position on the validity of these primaries until she found herself unexpectedly behind in the delegate count and desperately needed to claim the delegates that she had won in these unsanctioned contests. As her chances of winning the nomination became increasingly slim in recent weeks, we have been presented with threatening and desperate lines of reasoning for why these primary results should count as is. At the same time, Clinton and her surrogates continue to propose different metrics for determining who should win the nomination even though there is and has been a clearly defined process in place for several decades.

Please think about the implications of changing election rules after the fact. We have suffered through at least one stolen presidential election and the manipulation of untold numbers of Congressional and state elections through various vote tampering and voter intimidation schemes used by the Republicans and their allies. The American people (and especially Democratic voters) have lost faith in the integrity of the election process. The Clinton strategy to continually change the rules for determining the Democratic Party nominee sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to increasingly un-Democratic elections in the future if it is allowed to succeed. If anything, we need more transparency and methods of accountability in our elections in order to repair the damage done in recent years and to restore our confidence in the Government.

2. The Bosnia Fabrication / Exaggerated Experience Claims
Hillary fabricated a story about a dangerous, life-risking visit to Bosnia in order to gain stature as an experienced negotiator in international conflicts and war. While this type of embellishment can seem almost comical, it represents a willingness to distort reality in order to influence the public perception. This is the same type of distortion that the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq, although the magnitude of the lie is certainly on a different scale. The Bush administration falsified reports, cherry-picked intelligence, used unreliable sources, and employed fear-mongering tactics to convince the American public that our safety was at risk and as such, you were either with us or with the terrorists. The lies used by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeachable offenses and should be condemned by all Americans. Sadly, the Clinton campaign seems to have shown a shocking willingness to employ the same tactics to create a more favorable reality and to rely on divide-and-conquer rhetoric to weaken opposition. Her attempts to frighten the American people by conjuring up 3 AM phone calls are bad enough, but her vote of confidence in John McCain over Barack Obama should be seen as treason against the Democratic Party.

3. NAFTA
Hillary lied about her position on NAFTA and used her lies in a calculated way to influence the Ohio primary. Recently released White House documents confirm that Hillary had been an active proponent of NAFTA prior to its passage, and she has continued to support it publicly in her speeches and memoir. However, while campaigning in Ohio, she claimed to have been privately against NAFTA during the Clinton presidency and believes that it should be rewritten to protect American jobs and workers. This type of maneuvering is reminiscent of the behind-closed-doors policy-making that the Bush administration has used during the past seven years. Specifically, Bush and Cheney have made policy decisions without providing transparency to Congress or the public, and President Bush has repeatedly ignored the rule of law by issuing signing statements and disregarding the parts of the laws that he doesn’t agree with. If we cannot trust Hillary to be truthful about her positions on critical legislative issues now, how can we trust that she will be truthful as president?

These are just three examples that illustrate the concerns we should have with a candidate who demonstrates a sense of entitlement to the nomination and is willing to lie, misrepresent, threaten, and divide in order to obtain the nomination. President Bush and the neoconservative movement have greatly harmed this country by the creation of an imperial-like presidency. This election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. The framers of the Constitution were in such fear of an imperial president that mechanisms for impeachment are prominently and explicitly included in the Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-hillarys-lies-are-importan.php

<snip>

"Her response to being caught lying to a military audience, when she invented a story about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, was to say it wasn't surprising she got some things wrong, seeing how she spoke millions of words every day. What a magnificent idea, that if you say lots of words some of them are bound to be fantastic lies. So if you listen carefully to horse-racing commentators they say things like "And it's Teddy's Boy still leading three furlongs out as they come up to the fourth last fence with Nip and Tuck two lengths behind by the way I fought a tiger once, punched it clean out and they're all safely over."

<lots more>
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article3571700.ece

[shayes51]

85. You have no clue as to

what I "obviously condone." In addition, a "lecture" was not what I had in mind with my post. You don't know me, so don't pretend to know my thoughts or motives.

[Hope And Change]

19. By the way this article is from 2 April, 2008...

don´t know...maybe you have a slow internet connection.

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

21. I agree with him, already weighed in on the Olympics

separately. We knew what China was when we went into trade with them, when the world gave them the Olympics. Don't act all outraged when a country acts like they have for decades.

[redqueen]

56. Hah! Well said!

"when we went into trade with them"

Yup.

[GoldieAZ49]

23. he is of two minds on everything

so he can play both sides politically, lacking a backbone.


Question: do you like schizophrenia?

Obama answer: yes and no

[redqueen]

57. If only Clinton has been "of two minds" about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda...

maybe she might not have voted for the IWR.

Sometimes taking time to carefully consider things pays off.

[against all enemies]

24. He should be, it's a conflicting situation.

[Recursion]

25. Ask an Iraqi how much standing we have to boycott China (nt)

[FlaGranny]

28. Very reasonable stand. Sort of

exactly the way I feel about it.

[Vinca]

29. When you think about this in an honest manner, who are we to judge?

Our human rights record is equally bad, if not worse. Gitmo, torture, black sites, war without cause, Abu Ghraib . . . all on Shrub's watch. It's a tough issue to fall on the correct side of without being called hypocrites. I'm closer to Hillary on this one, but I don't thing Barack is wrong.

[Fabio]

30. I think this is an honest answer

[carlotta]

32. Get used to it

If Obama becomes our next President, this is what you'll get, over and over again. It's how he operated during his years in the Illinois State Senate with his hundred or so "present" votes. He is incapable of taking a controversial stand on anything. That's his idea of uniting the country.

[GoldieAZ49]

33. that isn't unity, not even a good pretense of unity

it is spinelessness at best, deceptiveness at worse

not presidential material

[chascarrillo]

35. Take cover!

[snooper2]

34. It's called, HONESTY...

like when Obama gave an honest answer about his "biggest flaw" in the debate, and Hillary and Edwards said something like, I don't have enough time to do what I want... :eyes:

[Araxen]

36. Damn if you do, damn if you don't

Alot of athletes launch pro careers from being in the Olympics, so it's tough to call a boycott because it'll hurt so many athletes careers.

[weezie1317]

37. I agree with Obama entirely. I think most people do on this matter.

[npincus]

38. why punish the athletes because Olymjpic Committee dumbasses picked China to host?

They are never part of the conversation... these world-class athletes who train for years at all costs to compete- what about them?

[PBS Poll-435]

40. He needs to decide. NOW.

Either he can run for President, or he can try out for the Olympic Team. He can't do both.

[GarbagemanLB]

41. WOAH WOAH WOAH..NUANCE? We can't have that in a president!!!!

[MethuenProgressive]

42. Typical. He's come down firmly in the middle until he does polling.

Wimp.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Unlike Hillary's political posturing, he's being sensible.

[rodeodance]

48. PRESENT

[redqueen]

58. Yup.

Not something people in this country are used to. Most still seem conditioned to prefer "sound-byte logic".

[Firespirit]

45. Honestly, I don't agree with him

However, I am extremely protectionist and isolationist, both about trade and about the military, and there is no candidate in the race with those views. All globalists.

[rodeodance]

47. PRESENT

[DemGa]

49. The "Blank Screen" speaks

Just choose any side and you can be happy happy too.

[milkyway]

50. If the U.S. boycotts, they may as well cancel the Olympics permanently because a lot of

countries, certainly the U.S., would not meet the threshold of being worthy of hosting them. Any country that belonged to Bush's coalition in the invasion of Iraq would be disqualified.

Do you realize how ridiculous it would seem for the United States right now, with maybe the most despised government in the world--the nation of Guantanamo, Abu Grahaib, and the blood of a million dead Iraqis--to boycott the Olympics because of China's actions in Tibet? What China is doing in Tibet pales in comparison to what the U.S. did in Iraq. How can we complain?

[Milo_Bloom]

53. That pretty much sums up my position.

It is good to see someone who can actually understand the issue, instead of trying to frame it in black and white terms.

[redqueen]

54. Your questions can't really be serious... you're joking, right?

- Can you say "fence straddling"? No? How about trying to have your cake and eat it too?

How about "able to recognize empty, meaningless opportunities for headlines as the worthless substitutes for discussion that they are"?


- Why did he deflect the question from participating in the Olympics to one of trade?

Because the entire reason the world can't put a hurt on China like we did to South Africa to help force their hand in ending Apartheid is because of the trade laws that CLINTON helped put in place. That is called "addressing something which has a great bearing on the situation during what most pols would treat as just another opportunity for vapid posturing." In other words - smart.


- And why didn't he call for Bush to boycott the Olympics?

Cause it'd be idiotic? And most people know that?


- Where's the hope and change in this?

:rofl:

I love the talking points... really.

[lefty from jersey]

60. What the hell

Conflicted? You don't get the opportunity to be conflicted when you are the leader. You make up your mind. Conflicted? What the hell is he, a valley girl?

Grow a set, and take a position or are the polls not in yet? Conflicted, I don't want a conflicted leader nor do I ever want to hear such a word from a leader.

Conflicted... HURL!!!

[redqueen]

63. Hillary wasn't conflited about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda and partially voted for the IWR

based on her gullibility.

Your appreciation for swaggerin cowboy shit is your own. Not everyone still likes that brand. Obviously.

[bhikkhu]

104. After 8 yrs of * deciding with his gut...

I would love to have a president who is thoughtful. Both Hillary and Obama would be. I am surprised that there are Hillary supporters who would fault him for displaying the care and nuance in decision making she is well known for.

Perhaps it is the 8 years of experience we now have with "gut" decisions. 8 years was enough for me...

[not_too_L8]

61. How about trying to have your cake and eat it too?

Can you say michigan and Florida

[terrell9584]

62. On this one there is a correct answer

National leadership boycotts any of Beijing's pomp and circumstance events, because each country that refuse to participate in those just decreases the regime's legitimacy and well, our athletes continue to compete, with the goal of humiliating the home team athletes out on the field

Nothing would be better than a repeat of Jesse Owens 1936 occurring in Beijing this year, if in category after category athletes from countries that are the opposite of the regime in every way managed to beat the hometown athletes. It would be a great symbolism and it would help to blow their propaganda out of the water.

One problem in my mind is, will Taipei be fielding a team or not?

Would be a great symbol if the team put together by the Taipei government managed to beat a team put together by the Beijing government

[Freida5]

65. Well just vote Present like you always do BO

[Marrah_G]

66. I feel pretty much the same way - I cannot fault Obama for this one.

[LisaM]

67. Jimmy Carter showed real bravery in this arena and was reamed for it

However, it wouldn't be as much of a big deal these days to refuse to send your athletes. A good portion - NOT ALL - of the athletes who go now are pros anyway. Ironic to think that it was the USSR's intervention in Afghanistan of all places that kept our athletes home whatever year that was.

I do think, though, that this is a taste of what a President Obama would be like. Lots of rhetoric, but things won't change.

[cooolandrew]

68. Yes, let's not alienate china we can't combat green issues otherwise.

[lefty from jersey]

72. Green issues?

Do you think there is a possibility that China cares about "green issues?" China is drooling over the possibility of the US and the UK being less competetive in the marketplace as a result of compliance issues, higher costs and restrictions. China will have a huge manufacturing and marketing advantage that will bankrupt the West.

The global warming issue is an anti-US and anti Western measure. Manufacturing will disappear from the West.

[JBoy]

69. The US has no moral authority on this issue.

Sadly, any boycott by the US would be viewed by most of the world with as much derision as a boycott by Iran would by the Bush regime. It would also likely torpedo the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid.

Interestingly, as host of the 2010 Winter Olympics, Canada will not boycott the Beijing games, and is urging other nations to do likewise: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=5e8d4a08-e53c-4e46-96d6-5d0ac8c0d7da&k=94845 Self-serving perhaps, but conveniently so.

[lefty from jersey]

73. 6000 years of conflict

About 4000 BC China and Tibet made a pact to make each other's life miserable. So for the past 6000 years there has existed a state of conflict between China and Tibet. Do you think after 6000 years the fact that the US does not show up at a party is going to carry any weight? Why don't we do something more relevant and give them both a "wedgie."

China does not care.

[rodeodance]

81. Hillary is talking about only boycotting the opening ceremony--its big $$ for china--would

send a message.

[Zhade]

71. It's a pretty honest conflict. I can understand it.

At least it's honest, unlike clinton's constant lies.

[2rth2pwr]

75. He's of two minds about everything, it's his schtick.

[Forkboy]

79. Well Bush is always of one mind. Actual thinking is welcomed.

[2rth2pwr]

80. Thinking is good, coming to a decision is part of being a leader.

[Lilith Velkor]

88. Don't you mean zero mind?

[Forkboy]

78. I've been feeling the exact same way about it.

And said so to someone on the phone yesterday. I won't knock him or Hillary for their positions on this because I'm not sure which one is the right course of action myself.

[PetraPooh]

82. So you'd rther have someone who is always certain and unbending? Sounds like you love Bush.

[Critters2]

83. I'd rather have someone who can make a decision. nt

[Fox Mulder]

84. What is there to be conflicted about?

I think the US should boycott the Olympics entirely.

[damonm]

86. And this punishes WHO, exactly...?

It will have ZERO effect on Chinese policy, and will screw over the athletes who have trained and prepared their entire lives.

[Catchawave]

87. Take a stand Obama, geesh.....

But this should explain why his supporters will defend him:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/9/125123/2265

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

90. "I am a strong believer in free trade,"

Barack Obama is just another "new" Democrat... :puke:

[Orsino]

91. Good politician's answer. I agree, being conflicted as well.

That the Olympics are a place for the world to come together is precisely what makes it an obvious site for protest. Do we boycott completely to show our displeasure over human rights abuses, and if so, do we expect to be laughed at for our sudden interest in the subject? Do we boycott the opening ceremonies, while permitting our teams to compete?

I dunno. If we're serious about holding china accountable, I would hope that we'd be consistent, and register our displeasure in many forums.

"Free trade," however, is a buzzword that has itself excused many, many human rights abuses. I'm disappointed to see Obama using it without even trying to define it.

[Adelante]

94. I have mixed feelings about it, too

I don't even like the protests following the Flame. I feel bad for the Chinese people for whom this event is something to be proud of. I support protesting China's human rights record, but I don't like to see it attached to the Olympics.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

96. This is an amazingly disgusting post.

You managed to fill it with sexism (Womens can't makes up their minds!) and general bigotry (Careful men, Obama is girly. Maybe you're girly if you support him).

I hope this post stays around. The next time you attempt to smear Obama as "sexist" I'd love to link to this post.

Way to completely miss the point on the SNL sketch too.

[NewHampshireDem]

98. Oh, the fence-straddling Dalai Lama!

The hosting of the Olympic games this year is a matter of great pride to the 1.2 billion Chinese people. I have from the very beginning supported the holding of these Games in Beijing. My position on this remains unchanged. I feel the Tibetans should not cause any hindrance to the Games. It is the legitimate right of every Tibetan to struggle for their freedoms and rights. On the other hand, it will be futile and not helpful to anyone if we do something that will create hatred in the minds of the Chinese people. On the contrary, we need to foster trust and respect in our hearts in order to create a harmonious society, as this cannot be built on the basis of force and intimidation.

http://www.dalailama.com/news.222.htm

[anonymous171]

99. Wow, an intelligent response.

[rodeodance]

100. Hillary is only talking of boycotting opening ceremony.

[TomBall Democrat]

103. The ability to consider both sides of an issue

is considered an asset by many, including this Texas Democrat.

How will it help those in Tibet if we boycott the Olympics?

Also, we're entering an era of world economics where we must deal with the tiger in the room. Like or not, they are the largest economy in the world.

Proceeding thoughtfully doesn't seem like a crazy idea at all. Not to me.