Senator Obama, Quit Making This Hard For Me!

Great Debates
81

I would take a look at:

  1. their supposed positions on issues you care about

  2. how closely their actual voting and bill introduction record matches this

  3. their general demeanor and style of handling things / their reaction to local issues as legislators beyond voting on bills - being President is about taking action and responding to things, not just stances on certain issues

  4. their record of integrity - you want someone who is not going to waste a lot of our time with various scandals and sanctions

I can definitely see where you are coming from. I think a lot of the issues we care about aren’t particularly relevant to the presidency. Gun control and abortion, for example, are pretty much in a holding pattern and any major changes would be more a matter for congress or the courts than the president.

Even if McCain nominally holds the same positions, he seems to change them nilly willy now that the campaigning has started, and when interviewed doesn’t seem to be able to articulate why he is changing or even that he really understands the issue or his own point of view. This seems ripe for him to change policy once elected to suit whoever he thinks he is answering to.

Obama occasionally seems to change positions (like FISA) but is able to articulate well and explain the nuances of the situation and why he made the decision or why it’s a myth that he actually changed his position (like federal campaign funds).

82

Yeah, but there’s some weirdness going on with the polling, too, since according to Gallup Obama voters aren’t really “likely” voters! When Gallup sees no inconsistency in a “likely voter” poll showing McCain ahead, while a “registered voter” poll shows Obama ahead and doesn’t bother checking their methodology… well, let’s just say that I mutter about “lies, damned lies and statistics” a lot!

Here’s some more analysis by Abramowitz.

I think the mainstream media is getting upset because this race isn’t close enough–I’m having a hard time understanding how McCain is getting a pass on his multiple and egregious gaffes, his really baffling campaign choices like holding a lunch meeting in a Sausage Haus restaurant and running ads in American towns named Berlin while Obama was off speaking to 200,000 flag waving people in Berlin GERMANY, and these weird, offputting attack ads. They aren’t even mentioning the fact that McCain hasn’t set foot inside the Senate since April and has apparently just abandoned his dayjob–does he not realize that Arizona votes for President too? Does he think his constituents love him so much that they’ll be okay with him totally abandoning them? DailyKos article, lots of links.

It seems to me that if the media started reporting everything the candidates do equally, there’d be no race left to run–at least not among voters who are mentally capable of reading a ballot. Perhaps I’m just biased, but compared to earlier races this one seems weirdly off balance.

83

Why isn’t this substance? I cannot speak for Bricker of course but to me the OP is not choosing who is the better dressed.

I see it as a vote against the mire politics has devolved in to and that is a worthy reason and issue upon which to weigh who you want to vote for. Not that politics has ever been a nice, tidy affair but Rovian tactics took it to lows heretofore unseen.

Sending a message that we (very general “we”) would rather see more substantive political races is a good thing. Not to mention it makes you question your candidate’s ethics if they adopt such tactics especially when they said they would not stoop to cheap shots. If they do go for the cheap shots afterall how well can you trust them to keep their word on whatever policies you voted them in for?

84

The most pathetic part of this, to me, is that McCain refuses to admit that his moronic attack ads are cheapening the race. Besides his comment yesterday about being “proud” of his commericals, he responds to criticism about “The One” with this:

A sense of humor? I guess you can get as dirty and low as you want if you say “I’m just funning ya!” :rolleyes:

I won’t pretend that I was ever going to vote for McCain but I did think he was the best of the Republican lot and was happy to see him take the slot. Now I think he’s just a tool. Either he’s lying through his teeth with his “What? That’s not negative!” remarks or else he honestly believes what he’s saying and… Christ, I think that’s even scarier.

85

Well, let’s look at their alternatives:

  1. They can show polling numbers that indicate Obama is so ridiculously far ahead that McCain supporters don’t bother to turn up. Either that, or McCain supporters will be sent out in droves, and Obama’s don’t bother to vote. This would probably be seen as influencing the race.

  2. They can show polling numbers that indicate the race is close and that every vote counts. This would encourage voter turnout — and does anybody remember Dan Rather upgrading Florida to “too close to call?” Anybody remember the recent fiasco where the media announced the results before the polls were closed? Just a guess, here, but this is what the media is trying to avoid: the appearance of influencing the outcome.

Me, I’d prefer scenario 2 over scenario 1.

On the other hand, if they keep showing how close the race is, doesn’t that send the message to the McCain camp that the advertising they’re using is Working Just Fine? Considering how incompetent his campaign ads are, it wouldn’t break my heart if they kept on using 'em. It doesn’t appear to hurt Obama’s chances at all.

86

Me? I’d rather they reported the truth instead of trying to influence things by trying to not influence things. Let the chips fall where they may.

87

Fifth option: vote for a candidate you actually think comes close to representing you.

Sitting home just makes them think you’re apathetic. Voting for someone you like is a much clearer protest against the system.

If millions of people did that, they’d change politics.
I’m in a somewhat similar boat in regards to Obama. I don’t agree with most of his politics, but I get the impression that he’s a decent person who would actually do his best to do good. That’s unfortunately quite rare in a presidential candidate.

But I have reservations. He wrote that in some ways he’sa blank screen on which everyone can place their hopes and desires. In another thread, I recall Diogenes saying that the idea that Obama is a fundamentally different kind of politician was a myth. It makes me wonder if his whole image is actually excellently executed BS.

I won’t be voting for McCain, so the question is just whether I’ll vote for Obama or a write in/third party.

88

Well, apparently not since July 11th! snerk

89

Bricker is in favor of gay marriage and against the death penalty, just to begin with. He, like many people, is in a position where his issues are divided, so to say that he’s abandoning his principles because he wants Obama to be national Prom King is twisting it a bit. The issues he listed, yes, but I think he’s selling himself a little short.

90

The thing is though, I never said or suggested he’s abandoning his prinicples, much less because he wants Obama to be national Prom King (and FWIW, Bricker never said that’s what he wanted, either).

Bricker more or less said he agreed with how McCain came down on a variety of issues, but that he was sorely tempted to vote for Obama in order to send an anti-negativity message to future candidates. He then offered an apparently tongue-in-cheek comment that he wished Obama would mess up so he could go ahead and vote for the candidate with whom he most agreed on the issues.

I merely suggested that negative campaigning would likely remain the preferred campaign method because most candidates lack the charm and charisma that causes negative campaigning to backfire when it comes to Obama, and essentially that he might be casting his vote against negativity in vain.

You and Fish both misconstrued rather badly what Bricker and I both actually said.

91

As for Bricker’s issues (which are undoubtedly sincere, I would never suggest that friend Bricker doesn’t have issues…), well, the runners are well polished and the harness is supple, but the sled dogs are dead.

Abortion? More and more yesterday’s issue, pro-choice has become the cultural norm, and scientific changes have made any such legislation moot. Even if abortion became universally condoned, the number of abortions is going to go down as the efficacy of birth control increases. It would be like passing laws standardizing buggy whips as the first motorcar putters past the window.

Gun control? Futility makes for a vexing political position, it gets on your nerves after a while. The middlin’ left favors gun control if they could get it without dragging anyone to it who is kicking, screaming, and clawing the linoleum. There are millions upon millions of the goddam things out there, might as well demand a complete Federal inventory of cats. For myself and a number of the DFH wing, its just not worth it, go ahead, keep it, much good may it do you, muzzle tov!

And “textualists”? Well, lets just draw a discreet veil over that, shall we? That way lies the Great Swamp of Parsings. Perhaps if the Constitution had been drawn up by lawyers, it would not be so poxed with ambiguity, but then it would not have been ratified before 1935.

Leaving Iraq and the economy. Donning my Criswell hat, I predict that withdrawal from Iraq will be the position of both candidates well before the elections, whether Iraq continues to simmer less bloodily, or whether it goes totally batshit, either way, we’re outa there. McCain’s insistence on “victory” will vanish, its like tying a boat anchor to your dick and going swimming. If things are going good, good, we can go, if badly, too bad, we’re going.

92

When did I misconstrue Bricker? He agreed with my assessment of his position, post #63.

93

Yes, but by that time you had altered your assessment somewhat. You originally felt that he was saying he couldn’t bring himself to vote for McCain at all, and therefore if he couldn’t vote for Obama the only option left was not to vote at all.

What you altered this to, and what Bricker agreed with in post #63, was that if Obama was being negative too, he’d have no problem voting for McCain.

But for the record, I’m not accusing you of skullduggery; I think it was simply a misreading of what Bricker said in his OP. I don’t think Ensign Edison was up to skullduggery, either. In his case, it was just an honest misreading of what I posted.

If there’s one thing this thread has shown me, it’s that misconstruing other posters’ words is not always intentional. :slight_smile:

And now, having read elucidator’s post and found it putting me to sleep as usual, I must bid you goodnight. :smiley:

94

Because “truth in campaigning” ceases to matter more than 2 months before the winner is even inaugurated. Substance is what he actually does in office, what actual effects he has on actual people’s lives in the actual world we’re in - not rhetoric, whatever tone it may have.

Not on who is better dressed, but better spoken. Is that all that much more “substantive” a basis for a choice, though?

It is all too easy to mistake process for result. Politics is just a process. What matters in the end is the result.

Then let’s not settle for mere smoother rhetoric, shall we? Let’s especially not kid ourselves that that is substance.

95

I think McCain in these silly attack ads is appealing to his base, those who would never vote for Barack Obama in the first place.

His strategy appears to be “Barack is getting unprecedented support from millions and millions–do you trust that broad and deep support, which could be like the support of the current pop queen or some new faddish religious cult? Why not go with an old guy who’s not saying anything new or threatening you with, you know, actual policies or anything like that? At least, McCain’s not popular, or young, or thin, or well-spoken, so you won’t have to feel envious of him. (I’m John McCain, and I approve this message, or at least I approved of giving permission to use this voiceover to the guys running my campaign).”

The whole campaign seems based on “He’s too good to be true–maybe he’s not.”

96

Elvis I think what some people are saying/thinking is that we know what a McCain Presidency would most likely look like. But some are interested to see what an Obama presidency will look and feel like. It certainly won’t look like what has transpired in the past 8 years. At least we know that much.

97

Lips got tired?

98

Baloney. Don’t tell me what I feel, or felt. I never said anything of the kind.

A poster before you (MandaJo, post #21) said a third alternative is to stay home and not to vote at all. By the time I got to your post (#28) where you exhorted him not to vote for Obama, I decided I would provide a valid reason why not voting at all sends a poor message. I correctly interpreted Bricker’s position (“all things being equal and both candidates were negative, he’d vote McCain; but things are not equal”) and replied appropriately to your advice not to vote for Obama, which incorrectly interpreted his position.

I never said “Starving Artist is telling you not to vote.” I never said “Bricker isn’t going to vote for anybody.”

You’re filling in the blanks, here, and you’re putting words in my mouth.

I know. So don’t do it. :smiley:

99

I think so yes. It is a window to the person he is. It tells me how he thinks. It tells me he has a sharp mind. I know he is more than a parrot repeating what a speech writer gives him (yes he has a speech writer but he has personally written some of his more notable speeches). I believe a sharp, questioning mind to be a critical quality of a potential president of the US.

For my money the means is every bit as important as the ends. We have a president who operates on an ends justifies the means mindset and I am not ok with most of it. When I see McCain seemingly operating in the same fashion I take note and go the other way.

Let’s not confuse smoother rhetoric as merely better delivery.

100

Phl, that approach, of choosing “something different” even without much of an idea what it would actually be, is how we got Bush, remember?

Whack, let’s not confuse words for thoughts, much less for effectiveness. “A sharp, questioning mind” is indeed a critical quality - for a philosopher king. But for a chief executive, someone we’re hiring to run the damn government and get some real things done to help real people, it’s not at all so clear that it’s the dominant consideration.