Obama will be giving his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination. I intend to be blogging live and commenting as it goes.
At this point, to be honest, I’m not loving Obama’s chances come November, for three reasons:
1) He’s black. A lot of people in this country don’t like blacks.
2) He’s intelligent. A lot of people in this country don’t like intelligence.
3) He’s not Hillary Clinton. A lot of people in this country are pìššëd øff about that.
That is, of course, as of this writing. A lot can happen on both sides. Gaffes. Missteps. Lies that take hold and become truth through repetition. Anything.
But as of this writing, to me…looks like President McCain. I hope I’m wrong.
PAD
• 
In the end, the last two elections have rendered any discussion moot. Popular vote, as we learned the hard way, doesn’t count. Only the electoral votes, which do not have to agree with their state’s popular vote, have any bearing. Perhaps we’d be better off schmoozing with our electoral college than blowing huge coin on the endless frat party of the national conventions.
Scott, Michael T, – What’s the difference? Are we not a socialist nation already? Do we not pay into Social Security? Do we not have state healthcare, no matter how crappy, for the disabled and elderly? Do we not support a government-sponsored free education system? Is there that much difference between paying billions of tax dollars to the airline agencies and Amtrak to keep them afloat, vs. outright public ownership? Does not Big Brother already tap our phones, record every email, watch our library books, demand to stick its nose between me and my doctor, and make us carry photo ID everywhere?
At this point, after 8 years of having my treasured American Civil Rights removed one by one, I do not fear a “socialist” state (not to be confused with a Communist state), because it’s already here, and has been in one form or another since Roosevelt II. McCain’s views on certain issues, especially women’s rights, are from another century and another reality, and will only worsen Big Brother’s grip on America. And, outside of the last 8 years, the President does not have all the power. In theory, if Congress does not like the President’s ideas, they have the right to say “No.” If we become a socialist state, you have to hold spineless Congress to blame as well.
As the resident Denverite, I say greetings… from Des Moines! Yes, I’m in Des Moines for the Labor Day Weekend. What does this have to do with this thread? Well, I’m not in Denver for the last day of the DNC. 🙂
I have watched more of the DNC than I thought I would, although I still avoided getting anywhere near downtown until yesterday afternoon, when we had to go through downtown to catch a bus to the airport.
And getting out of downtown Denver yesterday was fun, as we had to stop and wait for protesters – several thousand apparently – to pass. Otherwise, it was dead at the airport. Downtown was absolutely packed with people; my wife took a few minutes to get over to where MSNBC was hosting their stuff to take a few pictures and see the crowd.
We’re staying with a friend tonight, so we’ll try and catch Obama’s speech from his place, but otherwise I don’t believe I’ll be catching up on this site until I get home on Monday. I’m sure I’ll have plenty of thoughts about the DNC as a whole, as living in Denver gives me a different perspective than the rest of you who are watching on TV.
I’ve seen some stuff on the news about the set up for Mile High Stadium. It looks interesting, the evoking of images from MLK’s I Have a Dream Speech which was given in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Being able to give the speech in front of 60k, rather than the near-20k of Pepsi Center, should make for an incredible environment.
“I won’t vote for him because I think by the end of his term the US would be a socialist nation.”
Which would probably fail and result in a backlash that would put someone much more to your liking in charge. These things are generally self correcting.
C’mon folks, can we at least TRY to stay grounded in reality. Man, we have one side thinking that the economy is the “worst since the depression”–right, with the GDP increasing at a 3.3 rate the last quarter and low inflation and unemployment, it’s practically economic Armageddon out there– and the other side worried that Obama will turn us into another Cuba.
You know, it’s ok to support one of these guys without also having to come up with some ridiculous claim that the other one is evil, senile, a Manchurian candidate, a ventriloquist puppet controlled by neocon banker/Islamic fundamentalist/Big oil/the phone company. In fact, to me, it’s kind of a chickenshit tendency people have to focus entirely on the other guy’s bad points; it lets them off the hook if their guy doesn’t perform up to expectations. “I wasn’t an _______ supporter,” they will insist, “I just didn’t like _______”. As if being let down by a politician is some kind of personal reflection.
Terribly disappointed in your assessment. Which just seemed like a cutnpaste from the HateAmerica/Hate the West Leftist handbook.
What happens if Obama loses? Will this type of race-first thought propel race relations down further?
Will the race riots be justified because obviously Obama was not chosen because of his race (or the black half)??
Maybe people won’t vote for him be cause of his inexperience?
Maybe the don’t agree with his opinions? Is he not one of the most left of centre presidential candidates in American history?
Maybe people disagree with him on Iraq?
Maybe his gaffes, not reported by the MSM but are surely spotlighted on this thing called the World Wide Web
Maybe His loony supporters turn people off?
The fact that usual left of centre press has pretty much thrown the veil off and has become a PR firm for him, might lose him a few voters?
So I guess if he wins its because all the blacks vote for him and anyone else who voted for him, not for his opinion, policies but only his skin colour. Was Geraldine Ferraro right?
Hi PAD,
Ok, I am a republican, but not a big supporter of McCain. I would have prefered Huckabee. But, instead of my ideas, I will present my wife’s (a long time democrat) and her problems with Obama.
First, there is his lack of experience. One poster posited that McCain’s record was a large negative, but to my wife, Obama’s record is a larger negative. No real initiatives, no big fights or positions,a non-entity now thrust into the limelight. All she sees is someone who came out of the dirty world of Chicago politics with a doctorate in dirty politics.
Second, there is the money and organization issue. Obama has gotten to this point by somehow having more money and a bigger, more organized campaign than his competitors. The official position is that he is so charismatic and progressive, that he has huge grass roots support, but she isn’t buying it. She is scared to death to find out who the puppetmaster really is.
Me? I just don’t like his policies!
Charlie
Bill Mulligan,
I, myself, believe that the ability to do the job of a politician is only superficially related to their ability to get elected – getting elected is nothing like holding office. They’re just two different sets of skills.
And Obama can’t afford to mention race. If he does, people will think he’s a whiner. It doesn’t matter if the things were to to say were clearly and obviously true – stuff like a black person in America faces a lot of discrimination which makes it hard for him to win – many, many Americans would see this as “whining” or being weak. Since he’s got to project unambiguous confidence, he won’t bring up race as effecting his campaign at all and I suspect he’ll be quieter about it than a white candidate would be (tho’ since Americans of color understand this very well it won’t effect his campaign; they already know the things he can’t say about blackness in America).
Luigi Novi,
It’s not my theory. It’s a pretty well known fact of American politics that Senators are weak candidates because of the complexity of their voting records. They are extremely open to charges of “flip-flopping” and pretty much every Senator candidate is eventually attacked seriously on those grounds.
Michael T, you’re already paying for other people’s health care.
When a girl shows up in the emergency room to have her baby, you pay for that. She doesn’t have the money, so it comes from your taxes. The only difference is, you pay *way* more money for that emergency room bill, plus the neonatal cost of her baby who was born too soon, than you would if she’d had proper health care all along.
It’s not just pregnancy that is that way. The system in general spends tons of money making sure that hospitals get reimbursed for all the poor people they have to take care of who don’t pay. All that money comes out of your pocket.
Making sure that everyone has health insurance would not make this country socialist. We’re already paying more for health care, we’re just doing it badly and expensively.
If you really don’t want to be paying for other people’s health care, sorry, it’s too late to stop that. But if you’d like to pay *less*, then you should take another look at how our government is doing things now. Obama’s plan isn’t as bad as you think it is.
Joe Morgante: “Maybe people won’t vote for him be cause of his inexperience?”
Perhaps. Although we’ve elected similarly inexperienced candidates: JFK was elected President at the ripe old age of 43.
Joe Morgante: “Maybe the don’t agree with his opinions? Is he not one of the most left of centre presidential candidates in American history?”
Obama’s agenda is no more radical than FDR’s New Deal.
Joe Morgante: “Maybe people disagree with him on Iraq?”
According to the polls, the majority of people agree with him.
Joe Morgante: “Maybe his gaffes, not reported by the MSM but are surely spotlighted on this thing called the World Wide Web”
The mainstream media has reported plenty of negative news about Obama. The Reverend Wright flap, Michelle Obama’s comment about being pround of her country for “the first time,” talk about why Obama didn’t used to hold his hand over his heart during the pledge, criticism of Obama for saying he would meet with heads of rogue states without preconditions… need I go further?
Joe Morgante: “Maybe His loony supporters turn people off?”
Just as Phil Gramm’s idiotic comment about a “mental recession” surely turned off some potential McCain supporters, I’d wager.
Joe Morgante: “The fact that usual left of centre press has pretty much thrown the veil off and has become a PR firm for him, might lose him a few voters?”
See my response regarding the “MSM” above.
Joe Morgante: “So I guess if he wins its because all the blacks vote for him and anyone else who voted for him, not for his opinion, policies but only his skin colour. Was Geraldine Ferraro right?”
This isn’t an either-or question. I’m sure some people don’t like Obama because they disagree with him ideologically. I’m equally sure there are others who will decline to vote for Obama because they are racist. I hope that the former vastly outnumber the latter, but racism is still a problem in this country.
I don’t think PAD was suggesting that his 3 reasons were the only reason or even the main reason why Obama might lose. Obviously, those who think he’s inexperienced have a perfectly good reason to vote against him. The 3 reasons PAD gives are 3 reasons why people who might otherwise vote for him won’t.
For the record I disagree with all 3 (so I don’t see why some keep saying that we are all agreeing with Peter). I think the race issue will be a wash unless Obama lets his followers make it a major issue (He’s too smart to do it himself). I think the “He’s too intelligent” issue is vastly overstated–I’m not yet convinced that he’s significantly smarter than Mccain, for starters (the debates may shed light on that mystery)) and, in my opinion, some of the candidates who supposedly lost due to their intellectual prowess probably weren’t as smart as their fans would like to think.
That leaves the Hillary people and I don’t think it will amount to much…but who knows. People don’t always act rationally and if someone really really believes that a candidate has personally insulted them it might be impossible to get them on board. The claims that voting for McCain will send women back to the 18th century, overturn Roe v Wade, and lead to a war that will turn us all into hideous mutant nomads may have lost its punch with repetition–we’ve been hearing it since Reagan and yet here we are, amazingly unmutated. Some people, almost 4 years ago, seriously claimed that if Kerry lost there would not even be a United States left for the 2008 elections. You’d think they’d be happy to have gotten this far but they’re all as gloomy as ever.
But anyway, I think most of the Hillary people will see the light. Obama by 5 points post convention bounce, easy. The actual election will come down to Colorado, Michigan, a few other key states and I would not bet the mortgage on McCain at this point. Just not the year to be running as a Republican.
Charlie E,
I think you have a perfectly valid point about experience. He hasn’t been in the Senate all that long, and most of that time has been spent running for President.
He did spend several years before that in state Senate, where he did some some noteworthy things and headed up some significant initiatives. I think that counts, it’s the same type of work as a US Senator, though some people discount it as being the minor leagues. It was seven years, which is a decent amount of time, but not a huge amount.
Overall, I consider the experience issue to be the most valid arguement against Obama. It is perfectly reasonable to say that 10 years in US and state Senate combined in significantly less than 26 years in US House and Senate combined.
However, I don’t agree with your other points. I don’t think it’s fair to say that since he came out of Chicago politics, he has a “doctorate in dirty politics”. That’s an accusation based purely on the stereotype of the area, not on the man himself. John McCain was part of the Keating Five scandal. That’s an actual event you can point to and say was dirty politics. If you can point to something just as significant from Obama, please do so. But don’t just say that he must be dirty by association.
As for the money and the organization, why is that something to be scared of? Mitt Romeny is tauting the fact that he was the CEO of a succesful company. Being able to run a large organization is not a bad quality in a President.
We know where the money is coming from, that’s public record. In fact, we know it so precisely that we can actually say that John McCain recieved over $400,000 from oil companies the day after he switched his position on off shore drilling. If you can point to someone who is pulling the strings with Obama, that’s fine. But it doesn’t really make sense to say that someone *might* be pulling the strings. Someone *might* be pulling the strings on any politician, and we can actually see strings being pulled on McCain.
I’d like to point out that if Obama hadn’t run this year, we’d all be talking about the record amounts of money that Hillary Clinton pulled in. She actually broke fundraising records, she was just surpassed by Obama. The ability to raise money isn’t proof of bad politics.
Jason M. Bryant: Luigi, By the way, white aren’t 80% of Americans, they’re 68%.
Luigi Novi: Thanks for the correction. 68% of 300 million is 204 million. 45% of that is 91,800,000. Still far larger than 37 million.
Jason M. Bryant: Blacks are a little less than 13%
Luigi Novi: Yes, instead of saying 12.8%, I rounded it off to 13. Does this really upset my mathematical conclusions, at least for the purposes of my point?
Jerome Maida: I specifically said that in a close election, such votes based solely on Obama’s race or tribalism could put him OVER THE TOP.
Luigi Novi: I still don’t see how the percentages you mention do this. Oh well. Maybe it’s me. 🙂
Susan O: The numbers are skewed. The population may be 300 million, but that’s not voters.
Luigi Novi: Good point, Susan. Thanks for mentioning that.
Scott: I won’t vote for him because I think by the end of his term the US would be a socialist nation.
Luigi Novi: Why is it that so many people equate Democrats with communism or socialism, and without giving any specifics? The fact is, every administration since WWII, Republican and Democrat, has increased the size and spending of government, and probably many or most of them have increased its power.
Chris Bradley: It’s not my theory. It’s a pretty well known fact of American politics that Senators are weak candidates because of the complexity of their voting records. They are extremely open to charges of “flip-flopping” and pretty much every Senator candidate is eventually attacked seriously on those grounds.
Luigi Novi: And, as I stated, they can also be attacked for not having enough experience, as Obama has. Many feel that his choice of Joe Biden as V.P. was meant to compensate for this. That’s the thing about spin and smear. They can attack you for never having been in the military, or for having served your country, racking up medals, and even what you did prior to being a POW. They can attack you for having a long history in politics that puts you “out of touch” with the common man, or for having not enough experience because you’re too new. They’ll attack you whether your extra crispy or original recipe, tastes great or less filling, or whatever. Jesus Christ would be attacked if he came back and ran for office.
I think the “He’s too intelligent” issue is vastly overstated–I’m not yet convinced that he’s significantly smarter than Mccain, for starters (the debates may shed light on that mystery
Just for the record, I didn’t say he as “too intelligent.” I simply said he was intelligent. Nor did I say he was smarter than McCain.
I read McCain’s and Obama’s responses in a recent modified town hall gathering, in which Obama and then McCain were separately asked the same set of questions. McCain’s were short, succinct, punchy. Obama’s were thoughtful, reasoned, and nuanced. The former plays better.
Four years ago when Kerry stated that, if he’d known then what he knew now, he would still have voted to give Bush authorization to attack, I stated right there and then that he’d just lost the election. It didn’t matter that Kerry went on to explain the nuanced concept that he felt voting “no” would have had a constitutionally negative impact on the office of the President. All that people heard was that he was fundamentally “okay,” so to speak, with the invasion. And if that was the case, why vote out Bush?
Bill Clinton was no less intelligent than Kerry or Obama, but he was masterful at hiding it behind a down-home, folksy manner that made him seem a man of the people. Obama doesn’t do that. McCain does. Folksiness tends to trump intelligence, since the latter is depicted/seen as aloofness.
PAD
Seriously, Peter — don’t despair so easily.
Yes, things have tightened up. That was inevitable: the country is still split down the middle, and the hopes that this would somehow be a walkover for Obama were always wildly overblown.
But keep in mind that most of the doomsaying is based on the fact that he isn’t winning by as *much* as he was before, as well as on polls that aren’t telling the whole story. It’s in the media’s interest to make the whole thing terrifying, so they’re playing it up as much as possible.
And really: giving in to that just feeds the McCain campaign. When the Obama campaign looks dispirited, it makes him *look* like a loser, and that’s counter-productive. America tends to like a winner, so long as he’s not arrogant about it. A humbling moment can helpful in that regard, by humanizing the candidate, but not if it turns into despair.
For a more measured view of the situation, I commend http://electoral-vote.com/, my favorite polling site. The editor there tracks every poll, and distills it into what it really means in terms of the electoral votes. The conclusion I get from there is that, yes, things have tightened up — which means that McCain, just barely, has an outside chance. But he still has to run the table to do it.
The odds are still very much on Obama’s side. It’s just time to roll up sleeves and make sure that happens…
I specifically said that in a close election, such votes based solely on Obama’s race or tribalism could put him OVER THE TOP.
GIven that black voters vote overwhelminly for Democrats anyway, and that the difference between the Kerry and Obama vote in the black electorate is not particularly big, I’m not sure that’s a supportable supposition. And even less so, when you consider there is tribalism that will lead voters to vote against him.
Just wanted to point out for people who are looking forward to government health care. I’ve read and watched quite a bit of news in America (I’m originally from Montreal, Canada) about how great it would be to have a health care system like Canada. Don’t wish for it! You have no idea what it’s actually like. Look into it and see the stories about 9 month waiting lists for basic scans. 36 hour emergency room wait times. The only thing it is truly good for is helping with the cost of medication…but you really do hope not to get sick! Even if you could afford to pay your own way it won’t help. It’s illegal for doctors to work outside the system…so Canadians that can afford it actually come to the U.S. for care.
Luigi: Jason M. Bryant: Blacks are a little less than 13%
Luigi Novi: Yes, instead of saying 12.8%, I rounded it off to 13. Does this really upset my mathematical conclusions, at least for the purposes of my point?
Relax, that wasn’t an attack on your rounding technique. I was looking at a sight that said 12.8 percent and 14.9% (or something like that) and I wrote it up as “slightly less than” and “almost.” Just my choice of words, no meaning behind it.
John Lee, what’s being proposed isn’t the same as the Canadian system. Neither Obama nor Clinton has a plan for socialised medicine. Instead they have plans for broadening our insurance system so that all or almost all people are covered.
Also, there are many countries in the world that have socialized medicine. Many of those have much higher approval ratings from their citizens than the system we have in the US. Every system has things that people don’t like, but I do think that America could stand to look at Canada, the U.K., Japan and many other countries and pick up on many of the things that work in those places.
Regarding what James Bryant said, Obama/Biden will be in Columbus Ohio this Saturday, so they’re already pressing things not too far from the United State’s largest college campus.
In 2004, there was a mediocre Democrat vs. an entrenched Republican. In 2008, the Democrat candidate is more popular, capable and the Republican less popular than his predecessor.
Just half of our main campus’ population voting for Kerry would have made a significant dent in the vote difference for the state in 2004, making the absentee ballots worth counting.
Oh, and don’t forget that the Ohio vote in 2004 was poisoned by the Protection of Marriage Act bûllšhìŧ (RUN! ITS TEH GAYS!!!), but you can only play that card once to draw the conservative voters like that. Oh, and the state voting controller said he would deliver Ohio to Bush. Oh and there were lots of voting issues.
In 2006, Ohio picked a Democrat Governor. I think we’re a different state where a lot of things have changed, and I think Obama knows what to do. Not that McCain is without his supporters, but I think he has more flaws and will make more gaffes and will fault as things heat up.
I do not think this will be easy, but I do think he will succeed.
I think geedeck has a good point. In 2000 and 2004 the Republicans used fear of homosexuals to drive people to the polls. I think that is really getting worn out for them.
1) It’s been a few years now and the gays still haven’t risen up and launched a campaign to break up straight familes. You can’t maintain the same fear forever without event to support it.
2) At the very least, it’s a broken promise from the Republicans who were pushing that. Even if you pretend that it was a valid issue, they haven’t actually done anything to hinder the gays, so every election it will be harder for them to say, “No really, we mean it this time.”
Very quickly, I’ll second Mark’s recommendation for electoral-vote.com; I’ve used it a lot and it seems pretty unbiased to me.
TWL
The youtube video is out of McCain 2 years ago saying farm jobs are going to immigrants because $50/hour isn’t enough for greedy Americans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOZKeOauNI
I think I already linked to the news story on it before: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12155322/
I think more people are glad that he’s not Hillary Clinton than are upset by it. I suppose you New Yorkers probably don’t see it as much since you were suckere….. err, elected her in the first place but to the rest of the country, she comes across as being power hungry and incredibly disingenuous. I’d have given her a chance if I did feel that every move she’s made since Bill was first elected to office was meant to create this moment. I’d also have voted for her in a second if she’d dumped Bill as soon as the world realized he’d been cheating on her in the oval office. I find it hard to respect anyone who would stay in a marriage for political gain.
Say what? You have got to be kidding.
Black? Ok, I am not so naive to think this is a non-issue. But I thought Democrats were the party of tolerance? If Obama is not elected (unless it is a miss by the very smallest of margins), I don’t believe this will be the #1 reason.
I would vote for a Black man (or a woman) in a heartbeat. The issue is their views and beliefs, not the skin or gender.
Intelligence? Come on! Unless you want to say someone is stupid because they disagree with Obama, that is not an issue. The problem is not intelligence but arrogance. Most people want someone with a brain in Washington, but they don’t want to be talked down to (a mistake I admit some Republicans make — and no, I am not including Bush in that category! 🙂 )
Not Hillary? Ok, for some Democrats, you are right. For most of the country, that is a plus. So that is a wash.
The real reason Obama might not make it? Because he is all talk, no substance, and because he of his views (when he actually spells them out). It won’t be race or supposed superior intelligence.
I confess I am shocked he is not 15 points ahead of McCain. Because I have friends who do plan to vote for Barack simply because he is Black and/or because he is intelligent.
Let’s see where things are at in a month after McCain chooses his VP and after the Republican convention.
You want Obama to win? Just have McCain choose a pro-choice running mate. He will lose so many conservative votes that Obama can phone it in.
Iowa Jim
Obama gets more money for his campaign because he appeals to more people. Republicans regularly get most of their money from a few uber-rich familes, and from corporations. In addition, corporations are allowed to give millions to organizations that are set up to run anti-Democratic-ideas ads.
It’s been a few years now and the gays still haven’t risen up and launched a campaign to break up straight familes.
Apparently you are unaware of what has been going on. There has been a concerted attack both on families as well as on religious institutions that believe marriage by definition is the joining of a man and woman. The attack has not been “head on” because the backlash would kill the effort.
One example: A lesbian couple sued a Methodist camp for refusing to allow them to have a ceremony at their camp facility. This is a private, church owned facility. This church believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Why is it necessary to sue and force a church to go against its beliefs? They could have their ceremony performed somewhere else. This is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.
Second example: EHarmony is being sued because they don’t provide matches for gay couples. So what? There are plenty of ways for a gay couple to meet. While there probably are some religious views behind Eharmony’s decision, the most basic reason is their method is based on the reality that men and women are different. Their system is built on matching a man and a woman. Why force them to offer the same service to gay couples? That is not a right — that is a demand.
I do see these actions as a direct assault on “straight” marriages. They don’t have to break them up — they just have to make them irrelevant.
Marriage is not a government created contract. It is based on a natural act of a man and woman coming together to join in marriage and have children. The Republicans did not have to use scare tactics about the gay agenda. They just had to state clearly what gay activists were already trying to achieve.
Will that matter this election? California will demonstrate that very well. If, even with the twisting of the original wording, the resolution passes, it will clearly demonstrate this is not just a “Republican” issue.
However, I don’t see McCain making this a big issue. So unless he is asked, you can rest easy that it won’t be used as a “scare tactic” the way it supposedly was in the past.
Iowa Jim
Obama gets more money for his campaign because he appeals to more people. Republicans regularly get most of their money from a few uber-rich familes, and from corporations. In addition, corporations are allowed to give millions to organizations that are set up to run anti-Democratic-ideas ads.
Would you mind giving your source for this statement? The numbers I have seen for past presidential elections show Democrats getting plenty of money from uber-rich families and corporations, while Republicans have gotten their fair share from individuals.
Perhaps it is different this year, but I doubt it.
Iowa Jim
I think you’re underestimating some things, Jim.
Sure, being Black *shouldn’t* be an issue. We all agree on that. But it is. And it may not be enough of a factor to sink a candidate all on its own, but having any effect at all means it changes the odds. I don’t think we should look at any issue and say, “That isn’t enough to kill him.” No one issue needs to be, things add up.
I also don’t think you’re getting the point that PAD was making about intelligence. People don’t see it as “intelligent” vs. “dumb.” Nobody thinks they’re voting for the dumb candidate. It’s a matter of “Intelligent” vs. “Decisive.” The guy who pauses, then gives a well thought out opinion that sees both sides of the argument is not seen as decisive.
The guy who says “Drill here, drill now!” and “Life begins at conception,” is called “decisive” and “presidential.” That’s exactly how how people described McCain after the Saddleback forum. That’s the point that PAD was making, he wasn’t actually suggesting that people say, “I don’t like voting for the intelligent guy.” PAD was saying that people don’t respond to intelligence, they respond to the cowboy who’s gonna shoot the bad guy.
I don’t think these things are enough to give it to McCain, but they are definitely having an effect.
The wait times for Canadian health care are not what they used to be. Most stories of interminable waiting periods are from when they first changed the system to what it is today.
The US health care system is ranked in the mid-30s among developed nations. What we have is NOT working as well as health care systems in other countries. Most of that reason is because of the insurance companies and the (oxymoron alert!) “Professional Health Care” companies.
So acknowledging racists will vote against a black candidate is intolerant? Intolerant of what, bigotry?
Yeah, it’s the new uppity.
You mean like saying farm jobs are going to immigrants because Americans are too greedy to stoop for $50/hour?
So he has no qualification for leadership, but with those pesky affirmative action clauses written into all our election laws, he should be 15 points ahead. Whatever.
And having the sense to not support a baseless invasion, and having the resolve to end the war within a century — that’s substanceless. Yeah, you should pick the next leader of the country. Like that’s a good idea.
You and our fathers get a mid-life crisis — and with 80 years of slavery and a century and a half of denying women the vote, the country gets to have end of youth adjustments — but minorities forced previously into hiding? No, they have to be perfect at every step.
That’s crap.
James Wartian: Apparently you are unaware of what has been going on. There has been a concerted attack both on families as well as on religious institutions that believe marriage by definition is the joining of a man and woman.
No, I’m aware of all that stuff.
What I’m not aware of is a single straight marriage that has broken up because of anything the gays have done. My brother’s marriage is still doing fine. My Parents are still doing fine. Sorry, but every straight marriage I’m aware of has seen zero impact from the gays.
If you can tell me of a straight marriage that has suffered because of actions taken by gays, I’d really like to hear it. If all you’ve got is people talking about how their marriages are “irrelevant,” but still living their daily lives exactly the same as before, then that’s not a significant problem.
That’s really the point I was making. Yes, there are a lot of people who don’t like the gays doing stuff. But here’s the big, important political point: The Republican scare mongers (not all Republicans, not all of them stooped to this) said that the gays would make people’s lives worse. It’s been a few years and straight people are still kissing each other in the morning, taking their kids to school, and coming home to each other at night. Since their lives haven’t actually changed, it’ll be tough to use the same phrases and get the same level of fear.
I even have evidence of this. Look at surveys in Massachusetts. Before gay marriage was legalised there, a significant majority of people said that they would support an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage if the law passed. A couple months after the law passed, another survey asked the same question and the affirmatives were down to less than 40%. After the law passed and gay people got married, the walls didn’t fall down, the schools didn’t burst into flame, and the people decided they didn’t care as much as they thought they did.
“I do see these actions as a direct assault on “straight” marriages. They don’t have to break them up — they just have to make them irrelevant.”
How does the marriage of one person to another make the marriage of 2 other people irrelevant. Isn’t the relevance of the marriage determined individualy by the people involved?
n the other hand, perhaps the way to make marriage relevant is to outlaw divorce?
Or marriage? Like my sister says: there is a clear correlation between marriages and divorces. 100% of divorces are caused by marriages.
“Marriage is not a government created contract.”
At present marriage is exactly a legal contract, which is why you need a legal procedure to dissolve it. Perhaps you are suggesting that the government gets out of the marriage business completely? But if so, why make laws making same sex marriages illegal?
“It is based on a natural act of a man and woman coming together to join in marriage and have children.”
It would be more correct to say that marriage is a social insistitution than natural. Relationships are natural.
The cases you mention are ones in hich one group of people tries to force its values on another. Wouldn’t it make more sense for yourcamp and the pro-gay camp to reach a truce in which neither side tries determine what’s right for the other. Since you both have a lifestyle that is slightly out of the mainstream, don’t you have a common cause in insuring your rights while protecting your independence?
Just for the record, I didn’t say he as “too intelligent.” I simply said he was intelligent. Nor did I say he was smarter than McCain.
I didn’t mean to imply that you said he was smarter than McCain. As for whether you think he’s too intelligent…I guess I interpret your statement as his being too intelligent to get elected.
I don’t think that’s the case but I do think it’s dangerous to play up that factor. It creates expectations that may not hold up. Here’s an actual and (having listened to it on youtube) pretty fair transcript from the recent forum: “The reason that people believe there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because, uh, of the concern that, uh, uh, about same-sex marriage. I’m not somebody who’s [sic] promotes same-sec [sic] marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not, um, that that for a gay partners [sic] to want to visit each other in the hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are [sic].”
Now. I’m not one to pick on every verbal misstep that a guy makes but after 8 years of using Bush’s malapropisms as evidence of mental retardation Democrats may find themselves wincing a bit if “what marriage are” is typical of Obama speaking off the teleprompter.
Here’s the thing–when you hear him saying those lines it doesn’t really sound that bad–most of us would probably be horrified if we saw actual literal transcripts of how we talk. It ain’t Mamet. But people have talked up Obama as being such a great mind and great speaker that any gaffe he does make will be amplified.
I still don’t think that will be enough to hurt him but there is that chance. Anyway, I think tonight’s speech will be a great one. Hëll, Kerry sounded pretty good yesterday and Obama on his worst day should be better than Kerry.
Hehe. Intelligence is the new uppity. That made me laugh, and I think for the right reasons. 😉
Nah, ‘presumptuous’ is the new uppity. I’ve heard every presidential candidates in my life introduced as “The next President of the United States of America.” McCain had his press conference on the Georgia crisis before our actual president did, and this time it wasn’t because Bush didn’t say anything until his vacation was over three days later. McCain has commercials that say “President McCain.”
Yet Obama is being presumptuous.
It’s not that they’re wrong. It’s that they’re not holding every other candidate to the same standard. So presumptuous is the new uppity.
Thoguh “non-American vibe” is setting off some alarms bells in my head, too. I’m not sure what’s more non-American about Obama: the wife and two kids, the off the rack suit, the flat midwestern accent, or the haircut he shares with every other African American man in his forties. Really Scott, how could you possibly think you could say that without us realizing there’s something else going on behind your words?
“Would you mind giving your source for this statement?”
Nope. My brain, after many hours of thought and observance over many years. It’s called an informed opinion.
Iowa Jim: “Marriage is not a government created contract. It is based on a natural act of a man and woman coming together to join in marriage and have children.”
No, marriage is indeed a social construct. Very few mammals are monogamous, and there’s a great deal of scientific evidence to indicate monogamy isn’t a natural state for humans either. Marriage is a form of social engineering. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s definitely not “natural” or “based in” nature.
Also, homosexuality exists in the animal world. So the argument that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural is as patently and demonstrably false as the idea that the world is flat.
Iowa Jim: “The Republicans did not have to use scare tactics about the gay agenda. They just had to state clearly what gay activists were already trying to achieve.”
Why does it bother you that homosexuals want the freedom to express their sexuality just as heterosexuals do? I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel that my heterosexual lifestyle is threatened. I mean, if I see two gay men kissing in the park I don’t feel an urge to go do the same.
Marriage is always an “unnatural” act, since human males are predisposed to mate with various partners to maximize the chance of breeding.
I said it once, and I say it again: the Islamic societies are the ones that better follow “natural law.” In many of them, one man marries several women, and also the physically stronger male is dominant over the females. Very “natural”.
Anyone here wants to move to Iran?
Obama doesn’t owe any big favors to any special interests. That’s the account of his message and campaign, and no one has demonstrated otherwise. NPR is reporting he’s going around saying he’s taking no PAC money, and McCain is taking it and liking it.
I just deleted about 1000 words of political comments, provocative debate (IMO) and general šhìŧ disturbing comments because it came to me that there is only one thing to say….
Congratulations to YOU. The American people.
Congratulations to the United States of America once again a shining example to the rest of the world. Congratulations to the Democratic party.
No other western country, (even my own Canada) can boast that you have the possibility to elect a black man to office.
Congratulations should have gone out before to The USA and George Bush for his picks and the specific accomplishments of Condeleeza Rice and Colin POwell. Too bad that (R) beside there name blinded most.
Congratulations and great job.
I am going to say this again: If he wins, Obama will be your Trudeau.
You will argue over his policies, his actions and so forth for generations. It will not be a perfect term of office, nor will it be entirely pretty.
But your country, I think, will be the better for his presidency.
It is indeed a magnificent accomplishment.
We Brazilians, famous for our miscigenation and racial tolerance, never had a black President, or even a black candidate from any major party.
But I’m worried about Obama’s real chances. Steven Grant in the Comic Book Resources site said it best: the Democrats are the part that wants to be liked by everybody, they still play “nice”, they don’t go for the throat, and they’re deadly afraid of offending anyone.
It looks like McCain is going to be the next President.
Peter David: Bill Clinton was no less intelligent than Kerry or Obama, but he was masterful at hiding it behind a down-home, folksy manner that made him seem a man of the people. Obama doesn’t do that. McCain does. Folksiness tends to trump intelligence, since the latter is depicted/seen as aloofness.
Luigi Novi: I dunno, I think Obama comes across as both intelligent and folksy. The emphasis on his background as a community organizer, I think, helps to reinforce that, and while he comes across as intelligent, it isn’t conveyed in a way that is elitist, as John Kerry may have.
Iowa Jim: Intelligence? Come on! Unless you want to say someone is stupid because they disagree with Obama, that is not an issue.
Luigi Novi: And since that’s not what Peter said, then yeah, it isn’t one.
Iowa Jim: Would you mind giving your source for this statement?
Alan Coil: Nope. My brain, after many hours of thought and observance over many years. It’s called an informed opinion.
Luigi Novi: He didn’t ask for your opinion. He asked for a source for your assertion on a matter of empirical fact, one that he can verify himself. “Your brain” is not a source for a matter of public record, nor is an opinion, unless you’re admitting that you made that assertion up.
Bill Myers: marriage is indeed a social construct. Very few mammals are monogamous, and there’s a great deal of scientific evidence to indicate monogamy isn’t a natural state for humans either. Marriage is a form of social engineering. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s definitely not “natural” or “based in” nature.
Luigi Novi: In itself, no, but it is certainly a cultural formalization of things that are natural, namely the pair bond. We are evolved to have both polygamous and monogamous drives. It isn’t just one or the other.
Reagan and Bush Sr. ran together, despite disagreeing vehemently during the ’80 primaries. Obama has made a HUGE mistake by not taking Hillary as his running mate. Hillary would have delivered a large bloc of votes that Obama will desperately need in November to put him over the top. The two of them running together would have made this election a slam-dunk. Now it’s up in the air and could go either way.
Marriage is always an “unnatural” act, since human males are predisposed to mate with various partners to maximize the chance of breeding.
In essence you still make my point. Two people of the same gender cannot mate to maximize breeding since they cannot produce offspring.
This is not an issue of whether it is right or wrong to have sex with someone of the same gender. This is about whether marriage is about the joining of a man and a woman. Even if it is one person with multiple spouses of the other gender, it is still a male / female joining.
Iowa Jim
And because you’re not a hypocrite, you’re going to extend your principle to their logical conclusion to advocate how menopause should be grounds for divorce, and how post-menopausal women shouldn’t marry.
Bill Clay: Hillary would have delivered a large bloc of votes that Obama will desperately need in November to put him over the top.
Luigi Novi: I dunno, I think it might’ve galvanized those who don’t like her against their ticket.
Iowa Jim: ven if it is one person with multiple spouses of the other gender, it is still a male / female joining.
Luigi Novi: Look around, Jim. Even if that were ever true as a question of the inherent nature of the word, it’s a time that’s ending as we speak.
Bill Clay: Hillary would have delivered a large bloc of votes that Obama will desperately need in November to put him over the top.
I don’t think that’s a clear cut thing. Polls have showed Obama losing just as many votes by having Hillary as he would gain. The majority of Hillary voters have switched to Obama already and there’s potential for more. The number of people who strongly dislike her is just as big, and it would grow as the Republicans turned their attack machine on her and reminded people of the Hillary that has been parodied as a growling dog more than once.
Not to be a pessimist, but the people who wouldn’t have voted for Hillary almost certainly won’t vote for Obama either, IMHO. The votes she would have cost him were already lost. But her loyal fan base, and political machine, would have been a boost to him in a tight race. It’s a long standing political tradition to make your strongest rival your ally.
Bill, the votes that he would be losing are largely Independents, which polls show are mainly ex-Republicans these days. There are a *lot* of people who want a change from Bush, but still don’t like Hillary. It’s not a policy thing, they specifically dislike Hillary. Polls that asked people if they’d vote for him with Hillary got about the same numbers as when they were asked without her. He gained a few Hillary supporters, but lost just as many Independents.
More importantly, Hillary would fire up the Republicans. The difference between Obama’s support and McCain’s support is not how many of their base is willing to vote for them. The big difference is that the Republicans are much less enthusiastic about voting for McCain, which translates to voter turnout. If Hillary was on the ticket, McCain’s campaign wouldn’t be talking about how qualified she is. They’d be stoking the fires and getting their people excited about voting against a Clinton.
There’s a very good possibility that Hillary would have cost more votes than she gained. Not that I think it’s a bad idea, I’ve always thought that the person who comes in second should be VP. It’s bizare to me that millions of people pick the President, but one guy picks the backup President.
Also, choosing your opponent is not the long standing tradition. That’s something that’s happened a few times. For every time that the runner up became the running mate, there are more times that the running mate wasn’t in the race at all. The much more common tradition is to pick someone who wasn’t campaigning against you.
Susan O Wrote:
“At this point, after 8 years of having my treasured American Civil Rights removed one by one,…”
Susan, I’d love for you to actually list which Civil Rights have been removed for you.