A third option–and I mean this very seriously–is to stay home. You can’t, in good conscience, vote for Obama if you think he will be bad for the country (though I think you can vote for him if you think he’d be ok). On the other hand, you can’t, in good conscience, vote for McCain if you feel like he’s squandered a golden opportunity to raise the level of political discourse in this country. I’d write a letter to the McCain campaign saying basically what you’ve said here and that you will have to stay home on election day. I doubt it will make any real difference, but who knows? They are working from the assumption that no one really cares about this issue. Maybe they need to see differently.
I think what happened was that he was taught the rules of the game in South Carolina in 2000 and he learned them well. He’s doing what has traditionally worked for candidates, only this time he’s in a tough political situation running against a type of candidate that hasn’t been seen for a very long time. If McCain ran like he did in 2000 he wouldn’t have gotten close to the nomination and would have little to distinguish himself from Obama but would still carry the same significant liabilities that he’s dealing with now.
Fourth option - vote in local, congressional and senate elections, and choose not to vote in the presidential race.
His switcheroo on that, this winter, pretty much demonstrated that if it stood in the way of his becoming President, he didn’t give a flip about campaign finance reform.
For those who came in late, McCain signed up for Federal campaign financing for his primary campaign, got a loan based on the fact that he’d have that income stream, used the loan to resuscitate his campaign (which was then on life support), withdrew from public financing, then won NH. I may be eliding some details, but that’s the basics.
Or vote for Ralph Nader.
So you think he sold out because he wouldn’t have gotten the nomination if he hadn’t? But he’s still stuck with the rep of being a centrist even though he really never was, just on a few issues? And of course, he wasn’t a born again, sincere or not?
When Clinton ran he allowed questions from the audience. He expounded at length and educated the public . It resonated with the voters. he was personable and could think on his feet. So a candidate that can speak well and offer clear information has not been so long in the past.
When Kerry said I voted against it ,after I voted for it, a big hook should have come out and dragged him off stage. It was truly a stupid thing to say. I could never get by it .
Bush had those moments weekly.
McCain shows much of the same ability.He can stumble and back track over and over.
Bricker, I fear that your underlying premise - that voting for Obama would send an anti-negative-campaign message - is somewhat off the mark. Obama is an extraordinarily charismatic, charming and likeable person. When other candidates try to go negative on him it only hurts them simply because Obama is so likeable.
But IMO this is a situation that is unique to Obama, and what works for him won’t necessarily work for someone else. Thus, I would imagine negativity will continue to be the norm in future elections simply because most politicians lack Obama’s visceral charm.
I fear you may be sacrificing your vote - and supporting policies and philosophies you disagree with - to send an anti-negativity message that only works for Obama.
Oy!, if you ask me, the John McCain of 2000 was a stronger man with a firmer mind. This one’s brain is starting to turn to mush. You can see it in his eyes when he’s asked a question: there’s a moment, just a moment, where you can see the blankness and the panic as he tries to remember how to assemble a sentence. And then, belatedly, he starts to smile and repeat what his handlers have been telling him to say. It’s very disturbing to me.
I said it before: he speaks like a concussed kitten standing on a spinning turntable. So far, he appears to choose his positions the same way.
Er, no. While Clinton spoke at length, he didn’t usually educate the public. Most of what he said was artful BS designed to obfuscate nearly any issue.
Just look at his behavior during the primaries to see more of the same.
On the other hand, the spirit of negativity pushes many well-qualified people away from the role. There may be plenty of honorable Republicans and Democrats who don’t bother running for President because they don’t want to deal with the mudslinging. Even if they have nothing the mud could stick to, it’s still a wearying process. Obama is unique only in that he’s choosing to brave it rather than stay away, and even then he’s stated before that this will be his only shot at it (barring re-election in 2012).
If the message is sent that negativity doesn’t work as well as it used to, those honorable people might be more easily persuaded to run in the future.
No, I think he’s what he’s always been, but that doesn’t play well with the right-wing voters, who termed him a “maverick”. Mavericks do not win general elections. So he’s doing what he’s doing to placate his potential base. Obama is doing the same thing. It’s a little disingenuous to call the man a “sellout”.
The lesson is that you listen with skepticism to what they’re saying, because when it comes down to it they will revert to form, no matter what they say to get elected. McCain is not a bad man, nor is he a bad choice. He just happened to run into a better choice in this election cycle.
But not to vote at all sends a message that negativity keeps people from going to the polls. In that respect, it’s exactly what the McRove people want. If the voters on the fence see the choice as “Obama or nothing” then the mudslingers are going to try to push you toward “nothing.”
There is another option on McCain that we haven’t mentioned yet, and one I find myself rather painfully considering: that he never was who we thought he was. If you reinterpret his actions in the light of gamesmanship, an uncomfortably valid case emerges. I give up my opinions with grave reluctance, but I find myself coming around to this more and more. In that interpretation, he was never a maverick to begin with, he just took carefully chosen stances that would give him the appearance of someone who “reaches across the aisle”.
The case is made best here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/31/142834/892/240/560121
(WARNING! Very lefty site, Godawmighty! lefty site, Daily Kos, fer cryin’ out loud!..Appropriate cooty protocols possibly ineffective…all power to the people!..uh, shields…divert power to the shields…)
There are points therein where the case is clearly overstated, but not so many as I might have expected. For instance, I have long held that his support with John Kerry for Viet Nam reconciliation was a noble and healing act, and I’m going to cling to that anyway. But the rest of it…
So, in a nutshell, maybe the answer is he simply never was who we thought he was.
Forme the issues are actually secondary to the tenor, character, and overall wisdom of the man (or woman). Obama is thoughtful, well educated and it has been frequently mentioned how he does take the time to understand an issue from all sides. See, a President will actually be faced with decision that we cannot imagine right now, and I want someone in there that I think will, while still guided by his personal values, will be honest in his assessment.
That is what I get from Obama’s campaigning style as well.
Anyone who paid attention to Clinton knows that, while his faults were many, this simply isn’t true.
Obama is going negative already, making vague accusations of Racism and Xenophobia against McCain that aren’t warranted.
I must be more cynical than you, Bricker. I think the only reason Obama is staying relatively positive is because going negative hurts his brand. He’s running a spiritual, uplifting campaign, and has substantial risks if he goes negative. But you wait - if he drops behind in the polls he’ll get as dirty as anyone if he needs to.
I remember that, during the 2000 election season, one of the Republican talking points was “Character matters! Bring back integrity to the White House!”
It appears Bricker still seems to feel this way. 
I, too, have noticed a different McCain (than the one I thought he was) emerge this election year, possibly because of the pressure to win the election.
And another one sees the importance of a candidate’s character.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but I’m not advocating that anyone not vote.