posted
I have to admit I'm lookng much more forward to the VP debate compared to the Presidential debates, for the sheer entertainment value.
I do think seeing McCain and Obama together answering similar questions will help me decide who I'm actually going to vote for.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's definitely not unique in that regard. I think Ron Paul has a similar dynamic with his supporters. But McCain's campaign definitely doesn't share that narrative. Instead he's being billed as a maverick.
This sounds right to me. Also explains why Ron Paul was the candidate, besides Obama, who captured my interest the most in the primaries.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I think Ron Paul is the pefect example of a campaign of people more than a person. The problem is that Paul seemed to have little control over his own campaign, and a lot of the footsoldiers of his campaign I don't think really support the full depth of his positions.
Obama is more of a hybrid. He NEVER would have gotten to where he is without an army of grassroots support, and he wouldn't have had nearly as much money as he's had and still has without an army of small donations from millions of supporters. But once they got him where he is, he took total command of his own campaign. I see Obama's campaign as more of a partnership with the people who got him there. I see Ron Paul's campaign as more of a movement with a figurehead.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just out of curiosity, who here is undecided? What are you looking for to make your decision?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, it starts with fighting, then the fighting turns sexual... then to prolong the tension, it turns back to violence... then they start kissing.
I'd sooner kiss a pig. Though I'm not sure how I'd tell the difference.
Wasn't a bad interview actually. If anything, Bill is the best guy to interview Obama for a couple reasons. 1. He's certainly not going to lob a softball, and everyone knows it. Obama handled himself well, and it's to his credit. No one can claim he got a leg up from O'Reilly. 2. He looks tough in an aggressive interview. It's not some puff piece, but rather an aggressive interview with a rather combative 'journalist' who can allow Obama not only to state his position, but force him to defend them.
I hope they go more into Iraq, but I doubt it, because Obama didn't really push the political angle as much as I would've liked. To hear O'Reilly tell it, the war is all over and we won just because of the surge. O'Reilly managed to reduce but not eliminate his douchebag factor a couple levels for this interview, which is nice.
I won't say the parts of the interview that I disliked, most of which stem from O'Reilly's behavior, but I'll finish by saying I think Obama was smart to do the interview.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's one difference among the candidates I noticed watching the primaries that I'm surprised no one else has covered yet. As far as the candidates themeselves, they both have some strengths and weaknesses. But after hearing their wives speak, it seems that Obama has a huge advantage.
I don't mean to imply anything about the character of either woman, as I don't know enough to make a decision. But watching Cindy McCain speak last night made me cringe. Between the scary post-cosmetic-surgery face, the terrible bleach job, and the painfully awkward delivery, the only good thing about that speech is that it made Mr. McCain look smooth and natural in comparison.
Michelle Obama, on the other hand, is at least as good a speaker as Barack, if not better. I've heard her read speeches, and in unscripted interviews, and she's always natural, powerful and inspiring. And it's more than just the fact that she was a lawyer. Hilary Clinton was a lawyer, and on her best day she's never been anywhere near as good a speaker as Michelle Obama.
Again, it's not a matter of Mrs. Obama being a better person than Mrs. McCain. But having a wife that's that good a speaker has to be an incredible advantage in a campaign. Michelle Obama is taking interviews and doing rallys. It's almost as good as if Barack could be in two places at once. In some cases, maybe it's better.
I hadn't heard Cindy McCain speak before last night, and I'll be surprised if I ever do again. But from what I saw then, it looks like the odds continue to tip in Obama's favor.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Ick, Blayne.
::whistled::
You whistle me and not her when she started the attacks? Your a real jerk you know that.
IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Lyrhawn. The video is blocked at my work, but I'll watch it tonight. The article was interesting.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine there have already been several whistles in this thread and that PJ is just not around at the moment. It would be nice if you folks could take this elsewhere.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
You whistle me and not her when she started the attacks? Your a real jerk you know that.
Actually I was pretty explicit in my whistle that both of you were either treading close to the line or going over it. Your post, though, had a quality to it that I found revolting, and it was that that tipped me toward actually clicking the whistle button instead of just wishing that you guys would take it somewhere else.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I imagine there have already been several whistles in this thread and that PJ is just not around at the moment. It would be nice if you folks could take this elsewhere.
quote:Part I of IV - O'Reilly interviews Obama about national security.
Wasn't a bad interview actually. If anything, Bill is the best guy to interview Obama for a couple reasons. 1. He's certainly not going to lob a softball, and everyone knows it. Obama handled himself well, and it's to his credit. No one can claim he got a leg up from O'Reilly. 2. He looks tough in an aggressive interview. It's not some puff piece, but rather an aggressive interview with a rather combative 'journalist' who can allow Obama not only to state his position, but force him to defend them.
I thought Obama handled himself very well. I'll be interested in watching the rest of the interview.
Blayne, both you and Lisa deserve a whistle. And I hope that both of you *have* been whistled.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I don't see how what I said could concievably have been worst then being called racist slime, my comment at the least could be interpret as friendly or at least whimsical banter "It's so on!" as if responding to a challenge, she might as well had call me Hitler and claimed I was responsible for murdering 6 million Jews.
IP: Logged |
posted
The racism was you assuming that the term "boy" applies to black people.
You were disgusting to begin with by using a crass and crude term for Palin. I'm really disappointed at the other folks here for not coming down on you like a ton of bricks for it. And then when I criticized your courseness, you called me a feminazi. You don't belong with other people, Blayne.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I was kind of hoping to discuss politics here. I really couldn't care less who started what or said what or any of the rest of it. If it matters that much to others then please start a new thread and take it over there.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should have mentioned before, that the next three parts of the interview will air on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Blayne/Lisa -
Anytime now, one of you can choose to be the adult here and just drop it. I'd hoped that by now one of you would have realized how silly you both look and just let it go. If neither of you respect each other, I'd at least hope you'd respect every other person who reads and posts in this thread enough to not get it locked because of your bickering.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I was away, taking care of my children.
Both of you stop. I would prefer if you refrain from addressing one another directly, since evidence shows that you haven't chosen to do so reasonably. If you feel you cannot participate in this thread without taking one another on, then stay out of the thread. I'd hate to lock the topic even beyond my normal desire not to do so, because this is an enormously relevant topic to at least the majority of people on this forum, and could directly or indirectly affect all of them. Ending that because of the squabbles of two people would strike me as very wrong, and I'd prefer to come up with other options.
posted
I read this article, and I thought that it's not about the issues. Issues change. It's about how much we can trust and anticipate the President's judgment. I think that's why Obama's myopic one world vision (a vision which, btw, doesn't include me or Jeremiah Wright) disturbs me as much as Sarah "abstinence only" Palin's vision. What I appreciate about the openly divisive talk of the Republicans, as opposed to the Obama campaign, is that at least they admit that their views are controversial.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Clearly when he talks about "us" he isn't talking about all 300million and change Americans who live in this country, because I think there are few policy things in this country, if any, that we ALL agree on. I think when he says "we" and "us" he means anyone that agrees with his positions and the positions of his supporters and wants to get on board. I don't see anything wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with saying "we" in reference to a campaign's supporters than saying "I" in reference to oneself.
I don't know; in some ways it seems perfectly appropriate. When he references health care, he's clearly referring to a bigger "us". And it seems rather likely that his tax plan will directly affect more of "us" than McCain's. And while not all of "us" might agree with withdrawal from Iraq or dialogue with Iran, the policy of a President would clearly represent all of "us" on the world stage by doing so, whether we'd agree with such a decision or not.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Palin Power: Fresh Face Now More Popular Than Obama, McCain
A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.
The figures include 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of Palin and 18% with a Very Unfavorable view. Before her acceptance speech, Palin was viewed favorably by 52%. A week ago, 67% had never heard of her.
The new data also shows significant increases in the number who say McCain made the right choice and the number who say Palin is ready to be President. Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden.
Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin’s favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%.
There is a strong partisan gap when it comes to perceptions of Palin. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans give her favorable reviews along with 33% of Democrats and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women.
posted
Post all the candidates' policies, blind, on a website and print them in newspapers.
Let the electorate go and vote for the ones that most closely match the voters' preferences and values.
Reveal the identities after the election.
I can't remember the last election where, by the time the day rolled around, I wasn't heartily sick and disappointed in both candidates. I'm not sure it's ever happened.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I can't remember the last election where, by the time the day rolled around, I wasn't heartily sick and disappointed in both candidates. I'm not sure it's ever happened.
Well, we have a culture of scapegoating that is encouraged by the media to end every election cycle in this manner. That way, no matter who loses, it will be clear that they lost because they were bad people, and not because good people can lose an election.
Now, I've long advocated among my personal groups of friends that they hold themselves back from the "lesser of two evils" nonsense that everyone starts pouting about at just about this time in an election. I think both candidates really really think and believe that they know what's best, and as McCain did note last night, the differences between the two men in this case are not as great as the media would like them to appear. I really do think that these two guys are both good hearted people, and I just sense something about both of them, that they are both trustworthy, but also troubled and distorted in this process.
We should keep our minds on the fact of this process, and remember what it does to people, and try to reconcile it with our personal experiences. Have you ever become the supervisor at your job, and your relationships with others changed? Maybe you didn't like the way that *you* started to act- I've had that experience. Or maybe you beat a friend at a game, and he/she didn't take it well, or maybe you fell in love with someone, or they with you, and the relationship couldn't bear the difference. These are phenomena that don't seem so different from the process of an election.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So when he talks about "us" he's not talking about me. Why people find this to be "unifying" still perplexes me.
That's an interesting point. How would one go about unifying *without* invoking such a rhetorical stance? I mean, if a person never talks about "us" in any capacity that doesn't include everyone then how does a person unify? All of the appeals to "us" would have no points of contention in them, right?
I see where you're going, but I'd like to know how you think a candidate would actually accomplish "unity" in whatever fashion you define it, in what is set up as an oppositional system. I can't think of a way to wrap my head around it- won't there always be divisions and an "us" and "them" as long there are any issues?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing about this election is, while I support Obama, I for once have respect and acknowledge the intelligence and good intentions of both candidates. I sense that McCain really cares about our future and thinks he has a plan that's gonna help our country in several ways. While I disagree with several of his policies, I'm not voting against McCain this year. I'm voting for Obama.
I will tell you though, while I've been independent ever since I first got into politics, I'm beginning to dislike the Republican Party more with time. I still feel the Democratic Party can be spineless and lack a lot of common sense sometimes, but right now I'm more annoyed with fear-mongering and ridiculous attacks on character or values.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If by "quiz", you mean asking a question about what you think then please do indicate the specific method for engaging in conversation with you.
You could, for example, simply have stated that you don't think McCain represents you. Or you could have asked what I think about McCain vis-a-vis you, without inserting a particular version of what I might think.
Dag, for whatever my two cents are worth here, I find it difficult to try and engage with you even when I am being completely straightforward, and when not trying to argue, I spend a lot of time trying to look neutral. In these cases, you often seem to treat my questions or comments either truculently, or more often dismissively. That is to say, if there is not much content for you to be offended about or for you to argue against, you seem uninterested in non-conflicted discussion. Now, that's between you and me, so any other situations is different (because maybe I'm that way too), but I think you should know that this is at least my feeling.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I will tell you though, while I've been independent ever since I first got into politics, I'm beginning to dislike the Republican Party more with time. I still feel the Democratic Party can be spineless and lack a lot of common sense sometimes, but right now I'm more annoyed with fear-mongering and ridiculous attacks on character or values.
I've seen some improvement here though. Did you ever see the collection of clips from the early primary season on the daily show, in which every single republican party said "wmd" "9/11" "terrorist" and so on over and over and over again? Someone at least got the message for McCain's speech, because he didn't invoke a lot of the same buzzwords from earlier in the process. To a great degree, it seemed that he kept fear-mongering out of it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I will tell you though, while I've been independent ever since I first got into politics, I'm beginning to dislike the Republican Party more with time. I still feel the Democratic Party can be spineless and lack a lot of common sense sometimes, but right now I'm more annoyed with fear-mongering and ridiculous attacks on character or values.
I've seen some improvement here though. Did you ever see the collection of clips from the early primary season on the daily show, in which every single republican party said "wmd" "9/11" "terrorist" and so on over and over and over again? Someone at least got the message for McCain's speech, because he didn't invoke a lot of the same buzzwords from earlier in the process. To a great degree, it seemed that he kept fear-mongering out of it.
I think he was talking more about the parties in general, not McCain or Obama. I mean, outside of McCain's speech there was still a lot of fear-mongering. Always saying how Obama wants us to lose this war and Romney's attacks on liberals and 'eastern elites' destroying the country. But you're right, I did notice the inflammatory rhetoric was dialed down significantly in McCain's speech.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: Thing about this election is, while I support Obama, I for once have respect and acknowledge the intelligence and good intentions of both candidates. I sense that McCain really cares about our future and thinks he has a plan that's gonna help our country in several ways. While I disagree with several of his policies, I'm not voting against McCain this year. I'm voting for Obama.
I will tell you though, while I've been independent ever since I first got into politics, I'm beginning to dislike the Republican Party more with time. I still feel the Democratic Party can be spineless and lack a lot of common sense sometimes, but right now I'm more annoyed with fear-mongering and ridiculous attacks on character or values.
This is a very good summary of how I feel, although at the moment I am leaning heavily towards Obama rather than definitely supporting him. I reserve the right to change my mind.
The biggest problem I have with McCain is the Republican Party. They say they support individual freedom and choice yet they have been crossing lines in the name of security. They say they are fiscally conservative and yet the United States is terribly in debt and they've been spending at least as much money as they ever accused the Democrats of doing. Not to mention that they really do seem to be pro-business. Corporate welfare drives me up the wall.
I agree that McCain means well. It is at least nice that we don't have to choose between two evils.
My biggest problem with the Democrats is that I am traditionally a small, hands-off government person and the Democrats never even pretend to be that. The reason I'm leaning for Obama is largely because whatever the Republicans want us to think, they are not the party for small government. The only party left for true small government people is the libertarian party but, IMO, they take it too far. Besides, the country doesn't seem quite ready for a third party yet. I'm not sure if/when it will be...
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the reasons I hope for Obama is that he seems to have a better than usual ability to engage with people and issues on an individual level; the "I'm fighting for so and so of Small Town, USA" speeches have become de rigeur, but reading Obama's speeches and biographies has given me the sense that he's only succeeded to the degree he has by engaging with people; without that, many people would be prone to see him as a blank slate with a funny name (or, if certain activists have their way, a Muslim with pro-terrorist sympathies.)
To go out on a limb, I don't think most people have a problem with government, per se; they have a problem with massive bureaucracies that squander their time and money and don't accomplish the functions they promise, or worse, hinder people in doing what they would otherwise manage perfectly well for themselves. The two don't have to be one and the same. We can neither throw money at a problem at expect it to solve itself, nor can we cut money that has been allocated to a problem and pretend that by "starving a cold", we're solving the problem. We need solutions that work at a non-sound bite level. And I think Obama is the better person to acknowledge the reality of those problems, and the better person to seek out individual solutions.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ohhhh pwned. In 2000 apparently GWB's platform was to "Change Washington".
quote:I think there has been a lot of change over the past 8 years. Change isn't always a good thing.
I remember Bush running on tax cuts, school testing, and faith-based initiatives in 2000. He got all three of them done. The results are lower taxes/higher deficit/weaker dollar, an education system that is so focused on increasing scores we've forgotten the purpose of education, and another government bureaucracy nominally intent on handing money to some churches. Indeed, all change is not good change.
The problem is that Obama is such a companyman technocrat, he isn't going to actually take the steps necessary to strengthen the dollar, increase the quality of educational discourse, or scrap the faith-based intitiative program. The guy is a conservative democrat. Instead, he'll make little changes in all three so that they'll run just a bit better than they do now. That's it. He'll make fundamentally misguided programs a bit more efficient and managable. The new program to allow college students a chance to work of 4,000 dollars in school debt through community service could yield interesting consequences.
McCain is a wild card. Who knows what he'll do with domestic policy. It could be fantastic, or at worse, the exact same.
I thought I was the only person who thought that. However, I make no assumptions about what he would/will do in office. Why do you think he's such a known quantity? Unless I get to hear him say, "OK, here's what such-and-such did right and wrong while in office", I won't think he's at all a known quantity in much of any sense.
I hear you on McCain being a wild card, domestically.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you think he's such a known quantity? Unless I get to hear him say, "OK, here's what such-and-such did right and wrong while in office", I won't think he's at all a known quantity in much of any sense.
If you listen to the speech he gave at the DNC and go to his webpage, there is a lot of high rhetoric that's not terribly deep advocating itty-bitty policy changes. It's almost as if his election is his biggest policy issue. That's not all bad. Bush's oil man presence sucks all of the air out of the room with respect to energy and environmental policy. I expect that Obama's presidency would at least open up space for some of the braver Senators to talk about healthcare and alternative energy. Obama, himself and his handlers, don't have the political will to initiate anything other than a conservative Democratic initiative. He'll take what's already there and make it a little better and sound great doing it.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: McCain is a wild card. Who knows what he'll do with domestic policy. It could be fantastic, or at worse, the exact same.
I think they're both wild cards, to be honest.
IMO, McCain could make things worse. I don't think that at worst, things would be the same under him, but perhaps that's because I think heading down the same road we're on would be quite bad .I am particularly skeptical of his environmental policies and plans for reducing dependency on foreign oil.
As for Obama, I'm not sure about the wisdom of a national health care initiative (although I'm not as opposed to it as I once was). A lot of the changes he propose sound measured and small but drastic change can't come in a few years. It takes time, effort, and a nationwide will. The fact that Obama seems to understand this is one reason that I am leaning heavily in his direction.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Why do you think he's such a known quantity? Unless I get to hear him say, "OK, here's what such-and-such did right and wrong while in office", I won't think he's at all a known quantity in much of any sense.
If you listen to the speech he gave at the DNC and go to his webpage, there is a lot of high rhetoric that's not terribly deep advocating itty-bitty policy changes. It's almost as if his election is his biggest policy issue. That's not all bad. Bush's oil man presence sucks all of the air out of the room with respect to energy and environmental policy. I expect that Obama's presidency would at least open up space for some of the braver Senators to talk about healthcare and alternative energy. Obama, himself and his handlers, don't have the political will to initiate anything other than a conservative Democratic initiative. He'll take what's already there and make it a little better and sound great doing it.
Crock, he's repeatedly stated going to make the initiative of gaining energy independence by ten years, "making a few things better" is the worst case scenario and completely unsubstantiated, quotes man, give us quotes for us to take this cynical pessimism seriously.
IP: Logged |
quote: As for Obama, I'm not sure about the wisdom of a national health care initiative (although I'm not as opposed to it as I once was). A lot of the changes he propose sound measured and small but drastic change can't come in a few years. It takes time, effort, and a nationwide will. The fact that Obama seems to understand this is one reason that I am leaning heavily in his direction.
I disagree. I think it takes someone saying, "This is what we are going to do, and this is why we are going to do it." Bush wanted NLCB, tax cuts, a War and Iraq, the Patriot Act, and he got them. If Clinton had been half as aggressive on gays in the military, the services would be fully integrated and the service people would have shut up and dealt with it.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I call foul there, DADT was extremely controversial and was probably the only politically viable way (in the midst of other failed reforms) of getting it in in any way at all.
The fact that it was an Executive Order should have strongly implied how difficult that even this as you put it "half measure" to get through.
IP: Logged |
quote:he's repeatedly stated going to make the initiative of gaining energy independence by ten years, "making a few things better" is the worst case scenario and completely unsubstantiated, quotes man, give us quotes for us to take this cynical pessimism seriously.
Blayne, he talked about independence from mideast oil, which isn't the same as energy independence because the problem isn't US consumption of mideast oil in particular, as much as the fact that Mideast oil stabilizes and controls the global market. We don't need to wean the US off of Mideast oil, we need to design viable technology to wean the world off of oil.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne said: "In 2000 apparently GWB's platform was to 'Change Washington'.
"I wonder how that worked out."
Well, early in his first term, Pres. Bush II had both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans. Now Dems control both houses of Congress. That is change, isn't it?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We don't need to wean the US off of Mideast oil, we need to design viable technology to wean the world off of oil.
Sounds like a job for a technocrat to me...
quote:McCain is a wild card. Who knows what he'll do with domestic policy. It could be fantastic, or at worse, the exact same.
Bad news: it's going to be the exact same. You think McCain is going to change anything about No Child Left Behind?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You think McCain is going to change anything about No Child Left Behind?
No, and I think Obama is just going to try to put more money into it, which is a black hole as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the teachers' unions help pay Obama's bills, he might also try to ease up some of the awful "accountability" measures in NCLB.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
