I’m not sure what evidence you’re relying upon to say that it’s likely McCain will say things that sound good and then pursue another agenda in office. As a general rule, he’s spent his career pursuing an agenda I generally support. Why would I assume otherwise now?
Obama’s message about how to conduct campaigns didn’t exist in 2000 on the national stage, so I don’t see how “Bush couldn’t have happened.” Obama’s all-but-certain nomination IS the message. Plenty of politicians have claimed (and even tried!) the “above the fray” message, only to fall into the muck when necessary. Obama hasn’t. THAT is the message. In 2000, a vote for Gore wasn’t a vote for that principled honesty, any more than a vote for Bush was.
No, I am saying that you can tell someone that he is an idiot if he just added 2 and 2 to make 5 whether he is Southern or not. The converse of this being, if someone has just added 2 + 2 = 5 and you call him an idiot, it is rather pointless to respond “Why do you hate Southerners so much?”
I’m really strongly reminded of Stephen Colbert’s bit around saying, “I don’t see color.”
Anyway, I can see where you’re coming from on this. Coming out of the analogy, I think it boils down to personal opinion and generalization. I don’t think Obama looks particularly chimpesque, so it’s easy to presume that the shirt maker didn’t think so either, so there must be another reason for the portrayal. He’s black, which has been a reason historically, so it’s likely that’s the case. But maybe the shirt maker honestly did think Obama’s kinda chimpy.
I think it’s good to be on guard against racism. Obama running for president provides a window for a lot of subtle racism to come out in the open again, and we shouldn’t just let it slide. But this particular fight doesn’t seem worth having.
No. Bush is a LOT more chimpy-looking than most folks – the broad cheeks, the wizened eyes, the button nose … he’s way more chimpish than any politician out there, white or black. It’s a simple fact of the matter.
I’m on the fence for similar reasons. Issue wise I’m pretty much lined up with McCain, but IF Obama can deliver on the promise he’s showing(to get people involved and invested in the issues in a rational way) it could be the best thing to happen to this country in decades. Having a leader who goes in the direction you personally think is best doesn’t help if only a small number of people are willing to get behind him. The majority being dead weight will effectively cripple any advancement which could have been made. A leader who inspires people to join his campaign, who wouldn’t have joined a campaign otherwise, and builds consensus(as Bush claimed he would do in 2000), can get the whole thing moving. America needs something. We’ve got significant challenges, the war in Iraq, our international relations, sliding dollar, trade imbalance, aging infrastructure, healthcare, social insurance, etc. A united population taking action on these challenges, even in a direction I’m skeptical of, is better than a small group shoveling against the tide while most continue their apathy.
I’m just not sure Obama can deliver on that promise yet. If the point comes where I am convinced he can, he’ll get my vote.
If that’s the case, then I strongly suspect he’ll fail. I see little evidence that the people are ready to lead. Of course if I’m missing something, I’m open to changing my mind.
It sounds good, but what does it mean? “People leading” means what? Direct democracy? Ballot initiatives? Holding the incumbent accountable and voting them out if things don’t go well? Actually bothering to vote in an election? None of these things seem to have much traction in the US, at least not within the past forty years or so. Presidential elections still draw only about 60% of eligible voters and most elections, especially local elections where one voice would make more of a difference, draw far less.
So, how do “the people lead”? And how do we know when they’re doing it?
Maybe we have hit on a core difference. I would rather see the federal government do nothing than the wrong thing. Part of my belief in limited government.
One of Bush’s failings is his inability, or unwillingness, to cut spending. The scenario before me is Obama, who wants to raise spending, or McCain. Let us assume that McCain wants to increase spending as much as Bush did or Obama does. (I am not saying McCain wants to increase spending, but let’s assume so for the sake of the argument). I can vote for a candidate (Obama) who is more likely to succeed in his quest for greater spending, or McCain, who (theoretically) wants to spend just as much as Obama.
Obama is likely to succeed, and McCain to fail (let us suppose). If Obama is elected, spending goes up. If McCain is elected, he fails and spending does not go up.
IYSWIM. I have heard it expressed that gridlock is good for the US. I think there is something to be said for that, especially if the President is pushing an agenda that I believe unwise. I’ve read Obama’s ideas on the economy. I would much prefer that nothing be done than that be done.
The rest of your issues are worth considering, but - the war in Iraq? Either Obama will pull out immediately, which would waste whatever success has been achieved by the surge, or he will stay for long enough not to waste it, in which case he is not all that different from McCain.
As far as international reputation is concerned, that is not a high priority for me. Obama has already demonstrated a certain lack of care in some of his statements, and all it would take is a couple more blunders from an inexperienced President to show the world either [list=a][li]Obama is a loose cannon, or [*]America is a paper tiger (as in the days of Carter)[/list][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
This depends upon interpretation, to some degree. I think Hillary went from the inevitable nominee to toast largely because she ignored that principle. The people are strongly against the Iraq War, and she failed to align herself sufficiently with that opposition, figuring she could skate on that. She was wrong.
Leaders are for autocracy, not democracy. I support Obama because he already is what I want, to a large degree, (He isn’t nearly lefty enough, but I am patient, what is radical today will be liberal tomorrow, and a fact the day after…)
Am I idealistic? Well, yes, I am an American. Its what we do. We are born of the most wildly optimistic revolution, which we are still in the process of establishing (its taking a bit longer than we thought…) So proud of that, I could bust.
Several comments on this thread:
(1) The video linked in the OP wasn’t as funny as it thought it was. On the other hand, people getting all up in arms about how that represents the way democrats attempt to communicate or our level of ability to debate the issues are just being silly. You want to debate an issue? Start a GD thread and say “let’s debate this issue”. Many people will do so politely and earnestly. A few will be jackasses. That’s just the way it is.
(2) Bricker: I’m please to see that you’re as impressed by Obama and the way he’s handled himself as many of us are. Please don’t base your decision on whether or not to vote for him on something as basically irrelevant as the way some of his supporters act on message boards. Or at least if you are considering doing so, go find a heavily right-wing message board and read a bunch of posts from McCain supporters to balance things out. Also, something I think you should keep in mind when evaluating the actions of your liberal fellows is what the past 8 years have been like for us. I don’t need to rehash all the ways that we think the past 8 years have been a disaster for the country, all the ways we have felt unfairly attacked and cheated, all the elections which, if not provably crooked, have been extremely hearbreakingly close, etc. Put yourself in our shoes, take for granted that our beliefs and our love of country is heartfelt, and ask yourself how YOU would feel if the situations were reversed?
(3) Shodan: I can’t believe you don’t see the point here. There are a certain number of insults towards certain groups that have acquired a great weight over time. Calling anyone a greedy penny-pincher isn’t a nice thing to say. Calling someone who is Jewish a greedy penny-pincher is a MUCH more serious thing to do. Obama isn’t immune from criticism, insult or satire. But there are certain insults, in and of themselves no more or less mean or harsh or unfair or inappropriate than other similar insults, which, due to his race (and PLEASE don’t disingenuously point out that he’s half-white, you’re smarter than that) have nasty racial overtones when directed at him. I guess that gives him a slight unfair advantage, in that his opponents can’t (without being accused of racism) compare him to a monkey, call him “boy”, talk about “lynching” or “slavery”, or a few other random things; but that’s just the way it is. That’s a FAR cry from some situation in which any time anyone attacks him in any way, we knee jerkers just call racism.
The “unfairness” of the taboo is easily dealt with by disregarding it. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - if it is legitimate to call any politician an ape, then it is legitimate to call any politician an ape. Obama and his supporters can kick and scream and yell “racism!” if they like.
This is just part and parcel of campaigning. People who don’t complain when it happens to the other party’s candidates don’t get to complain when it happens to their own. Or rather, they get to complain, and the rest of the country gets to shrug their shoulders and decide if someone who expects special treatment should be in the White House.
As Shodan points out, there’s enough plausible cover for using the ape metaphor for Obama, thin though it may be. There’s no need to get wrapped around the axle over this one little gaffe. Rest assured that between now and November, the Republicans will bring forth an abundance of completely open and obvious racist jokes and taunts that will leave absolutely no wiggle room whatsoever except perhaps a weak protest of (“Oh, they’re not real Republicans… few bad apples… we’re the party of Lincoln…”). I look forward to seeing them squirm, if any of them have any decency left.
Right. I think rotation and balance of power helps us as we work things out. Thinking of the George Will comment I wondered about how personal freedom and free market deals with excessive greed. It might be another thread topic worthy of discussion.
Well, I did live through four years of Carter and eight years of Clinton, so in some sense, I have been in your shoes. And before you leap in to tell me that it doesn’t compare, because the Clinton years were wonderful and a joy to experience… think about that sentiment for a moment.
(For what it’s worth, I think Clinton had some outstandingly positive moments in his presidency).
But I don’t agree that spending time on a right-wing board will balance the issue – because McCain is not particularly a proponent of this kind of thinking.
Still, I will certainly not end up voting solely based on the reactions I see here. But I think it’s an important message in general that you are an aggregate part of your candidate’s message. As unfair as it is, you can see that Republicans are getting slammed because some idiot produces a racist button. And equally unfairly, Democrats get judged based in some part on whatever crap some of their supporters start to spew.
I’m far from having made up my mind. But the mere fact that I’m not in the decided column already is unprecedented. At this time in 2004, I knew there was no chance in hell I’d vote for Kerry.
Shodan’s reaction is definitively non-racist: he is judging each situation on its merits, without regard to race.
This is how it should be.
It’s not, unfortunately, how it is. Because we have not eradicated racism, two possibilities arise in addition to Shodan’s color-blind reaction:
Actual racism motivates the characterization.
People seeking to defend the target falsely attribute the attack to racism, a charge that receives favorable evaluation from the listening audience because of the real presence of (1) in other cases.