I wonder how Scotsman Hamish McDonald feels. :rolleyes:
On edit: I’ve posted before about how much I admire Obama, and how conflicted I am about this election. Let me just say that if all I had to go on was the Obama supporters on this board, there’d be no conflict at all; I’d happily be planning my McCain vote right now.
Dude! (Or Dudette…)
Where have you been?
This strategy has been going on since McCain clinched the nomination…
Bricker-
I’ve been wooshed, what do you mean?
He means we’re ridiculous Kool-aid drinking Zombies whose words would prevent any rational person reading them from being inclined to vote for Obama, if I’m not mistaken.
ETA: Because we believe, like, that Obama is The One. Or something. I’m not sure what we’re supposed to believe, but apparently we believe it to extremes. Fanatically.
ETAA: And I think it’s “whoosh” with 2 H’s
So…**Bricker ** thinks I’m a Fanatic? Hmm, upon looking at the edit: I’m glad Bricker can form her own opinions and not take the word of complete strangers on a message board. And *then * vote for Obama. At least Obama won’t wreck the train.
I think Bricker is a him. I (Oy!) is a her.
No.
First, I suspect he’s asking about the reference to Hamish McDonald. Correct, Phlosphr?
Second… you know what? Let’s do this Socratically.
Oy!: do you recall why I said I was torn, and what was making me wish to vote for Obama in spite of the fact that in almost all cases, his position on the issues opposes mine?
No, you didn’t say why you were torn. I thought it was about Obama, and that you’d had a sudden seeing of the Light! 
Seriously, that you’d perhaps recognized that Obama might be better equipped to lead for the next eight years in a truly bi-partisan fashion than McCain. You wouldn’t be the first Republican to feel that way.
I’m sorry. I’m not familiar with Hamish McDonald. 
I get it! The No True Scotsman fallacy! Wahoo!!!
I know they have been playing this angle.
I guess I just get tired of the coded political speak where a “strong rebuke” amounts to “I think he could have done better”. I believe the American public would respond better to stronger language. Say it in no uncertain terms. Tell them Bush is a stupid, criminal, evil man running a horror show out of the White House. Tell them over and over again that they should be shocked and furious over his handling of the office in near innumerable ways. Then point out that McCain is complicit with all this, provably, and would like to continue the freak show.
Maybe that is just not how it is done in politics but I’d like to see the scarlet letter hung around his neck. No hemming and hawing.
I thought this post-speech interview was disappointing, because it seems as if some may feel even more strongly pro-Clinton after her speech. Could have been, should have been, would have been, instead of let’s unify. This was the first interview CNN did right after the speech, and it kind of took the wind out of my sails…
But, Bricker, the two (Scotman and Democrat) aren’t comparable. A person is born a Scotsman, so anyone born a Scotsman is a true Scotsman. But a person is a Democrat or Republican because of their adherence to a certain set of beliefs and policies as right for the country. Therefore it would be entirely correct to say that a “true Democrat” would not behave in such and such a way, because it demonstrates a lack of adherence to that set of beliefs and policies.
It doesn’t mean the person won’t return to sanity later, just as, if you vote for Obama this time, you won’t return to your own crazy notion of sanity later yourself.
ETA: And in some cases, you do want to vote character over position. That’s why I voted for Millicent Fenwick for Senate in 1982 (not that I had anything against Frank Lautenberg, who has served very honorably in the Senate ever since). But these people don’t actually have anything against Obama. They’re just pissed because HRC didn’t win. That’s not the same.
Yes, I was asking about your reference to Hamish MacDonald. And yes, I remember your thread about wanting to vote for Obama, and your reservations. I have been rereading it.
I am a bit puzzled by this. In the numerous threads on the candidates and the election I think Obama supporters have generally worked in the accepted format of the SDMB with lucid posts and cites where appropriate. Indeed I have seen a number of McCain supporters toss out accusations/issues that when answered, with facts on many occasions and not just opinion, have either disappeared and refused to respond or concede the point or, worse, continue to tout their already disproved notion.
I am missing the glazed eye adulation you seem to be implying that puts you off so much. Further, I would venture that most Obama supporters here will concede they do not view him as perfect, that they do disagree with him on various points and do not view him as some sort of messiah. I think we all possess a healthy cynicism as regards politicians of any stripe and Obama is no different. More I think people are excited about Obama because he seems to represent at least some measure of change in the usual Washington politics and is at least marginally more palatable. In the end though he is a politician so just how far that will really go is debatable.
Mostly however I think a lot of Obama’s support derives from an utter rejection of Bush policies and McCain’s stated intent to keep going down that road. By that measure most anyone looks rather good.
I agree with you Whack. I’m sort of curious as well. I’ve reread Bricker’s last thread about wanting to vote for Obama…but I don’t see the glazed eye adulation either.
Perhaps Bricker could explain a little further.
This whole kerfluffle is beginning to remind me of 1968.
On the one hand there was Eugene McCarthy. His early and vocal opposition to the Vietnam War helped mobilize an army of new, young, enthusiastic supporters. Sound familiar?
On the other hand, there was Robert Kennedy. He benefitted from the family name, but also worked to put together a coalition of blue-collar, labor and civil rights interests, as well as those opposed to the war? Sound familiar?
Logically, you might assume that the pro-Kennedy forces would align with McCarthy after Kennedy’s assasination. They didn’t. McCarthy supporters believed Kennedy was “ruthless” and hadn’t opposed the War early enough. Kennedy supporters thought McCarthy was an intellectual elitist. Sound familiar?
In the end Hubert Humphrey got the Democratic nomination. Logically, you might assume both Kennedy and Mccarthy supporters would have united behind Humphrey, who had impeccable civil rights credentials, strong ties to labor, a committment to blue-collar workers, and was at least more opposed to Vietnam than Richard Nixon and George Wallace.
It didn’t work out that way. The white Southern part of the Kennedy coalition voted for George Wallace, the antiwar voters sat on their hands and Richard Nixon scraped off enough of the rest of the blue-collar and labor vote to win.
A few huge, game-changing differences: unlike Obama/Clinton, McCarthy declared he was running early, even before LBJ announced he wouldn’t run. RFK announced he would run only after LBJ withdrew, leaving him open to charges of opportunism. Also, RFK was begged by anti-war democrats to run, and when he shilly-shallied and ultimately declined, the antiwar activists turned to McCarthy, who accepted the challenge of unseating an incumbent president of his own party.
I think she was great last night, but I’ve been ready to vote Obama since the last votes came in. I really don’t understand how a Clinton supporter can continue to say they’d vote McCain (or why they would say it at all). At most I can see them say they just won’t vote, which I considered as well.
To be honest, I’m glad she didn’t get the VP nod, she has a lot more potential power in other positions.
Including the Senate. She may well be the next Teddy Kennedy, the great initiator of landmark legislation across many years.
Yep. I’d rather see her stay where she is or possibly a seat on SCOTUS.