The World Hopes for Its First President (1 Viewer)

[maxiep]

Right, which is why the media went on and on about whether Obama attended a "an Islamic madrassa," whether the touching of hands with his wife was a "terrorist fist bump," and spent weeks on Reverend Wright. Because that's how you give a guy a free pass.

Really? You think that that was a grilling? Most brought it up and then immediately made an excuse for it. Fox was the only one to go after it with the same vigor spent on Whitewater or Halliburton.

He spoke at the 2004 Convention because he's by far the most charismatic Democratic politician. Democrats clearly saw the chance to cast him as a new JFK, and JFK was not black.

Complete crap. He was the right color, and it was all about identity politics.

Me, obviously. Who the best candidate is is clearly opinion, and that's my opinion. The point is, I don't think people are favouring him because they want black President. They are favouring him because they think he's the best choice...whether they think that because they think Republicans are failures is another issue. I think it's a little from column A and a little from column B. Obama is inspirational and intelligent and has spoken more to the concerns of most people. In addition, Republicans have been in power for the past 8 years (in all ways for 6 of them) and thus they are taking the blame for the what people see as the catastrophes of the day: unending conflict in Iraq and a financial melt-down.

Is that all Republicans' fault? Clearly not. But that's how politics has always worked. The party in power gets the blame and credit for what happens on their watch. It's not a new phenomenon this year. Reagan rode it in 1980, when the economy was distressed and Iran had taken US hostages. The idea that it was all Carter's, and the Democrats', fault was just as silly as blaming all the current woes on Bush and the Republicans. But that's the impetus for change. Reagan created a big change (despite being mocked by his political opponents in much the same way Obama is...lightweight, celebrity). It remains to be seen whether Obama effects as much change, assuming he wins.

And you missed my point. He could be the worst candidate available and would still win against someone with an "(R)" after their name. The fact that this race is as close as it is, is a reflection at the concern over Obama.

Bob Kerrey made a terrific point in a paper this week. He cautioned his fellow Democrats not to view the results of this election as an ideological referendum; in essence as a triumph of liberalism. This is a "throw the bums out" election and if they take this election as a mandate to make wholesale changes, they'll find themselves penalized in 2010.

 

[Minstrel]

Really? You think that that was a grilling? Most brought it up and then immediately made an excuse for it.

Just your perception, since you're determined to believe media conspires for the left. MSNBC and CNN spent weeks on both the madrassa and Reverend Wright issue. All the cable news networks spent days on the "terrorist fist bump" issue....days on the stupidest "election issue" in my lifetime.

Complete crap. He was the right color, and it was all about identity politics.

Asserting it, no matter how dismissively, doesn't make it true. Politics is all about inspiring people to vote for you, and charisma is an enormous part of that. If you think Obama isn't charismatic or that the Democratic party wouldn't have valued that charisma even if he were white, I think you're way off-base.

And you missed my point. He could be the worst candidate available and would still win against someone with an "(R)" after their name.

I think you missed my point, actually. Thinking the (R)'s are failures is part of the calculus in determining the best candidate.

The fact that this race is as close as it is, is a reflection at the concern over Obama.

I disagree. First, the race isn't particularly close. If polls are correct, McCain has no hope, because he's way behind in states he has to have to win: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Colorado. He's even in danger of losing generally reliable red states like Montana, Georgia and North Carolina. Second of all, the nation has been right-leaning for the past couple of decades. The only Democrat who's won the Presidency recently had to run on a platform of centrism. In a right-tilting nation, a Republican will always have a shot. Despite that, McCain is dangerously close to slipping into the "no shot" category.

Bob Kerrey made a terrific point in a paper this week. He cautioned his fellow Democrats not to view the results of this election as an ideological referendum; in essence as a triumph of liberalism. This is a "throw the bums out" election and if they take this election as a mandate to make wholesale changes, they'll find themselves penalized in 2010.

The exact same thing could have been said in 1980. It was a "throw the bums out" election, as Carter and the Democrats were blamed for everything. Reagan embarked on a right wing crusade and, due to his charisma and ability to frame things as a building of a glorious new America, he retained his, and his party's,popularity. The exact same situation is shaping up here. Universal health care and other left-wing policies can be phenomenally popular and easily frameable as a "glorious new America." And Obama has the charisma to sell that view.

Whether that will actually happen, I have no idea. But it's a definite possibility. I do believe that if Obama institutes a universal health care program, it's going to be permanent. Like social security or other New Deal programs, it will simply be too popular for any party to consider trying to abolish.

 

[barfo]

It's been his primary advantage that has put him above any other legislator of his generation. Without it, he's Dennis Kucinich with a jump shot.

Utter nonsense. If being black is all it takes, why isn't Alan Keyes president? Or Jesse Jackson? Or Harold Ford Jr? Or any other black man?

He got a free pass.

All that stuff was widely reported. The voters just don't care about it.

Like I said, it's the most anti-Republican year in my lifetime, moreso than even 1976. We're both old enough to have seen Watergate (although you likely remember it more than I), and the sentiment wasn't this much against the GOP as it is today.

That's true. There was more of a feeling that Nixon (and Agnew) were bad actors, but their corruption wasn't the fault of the party at large. But then, that's as it should be - the failures of the Bush administration are largely failures of policy, not personal corruption. Seems fair to blame the party in this case.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Just your perception, since you're determined to believe media conspires for the left. MSNBC and CNN spent weeks on both the madrassa and Reverend Wright issue. All the cable news networks spent days on the "terrorist fist bump" issue....days on the stupidest "election issue" in my lifetime.

What is this "terrorist fist bump" issue? If you're talking about that New Yorker cover, it was a piece of satire. Both CNN and MSNBC took great pains to explain it. As for Reverend Wright, MSNBC constantly mocked it and played it down. Yet when Gov. Palin's church came up, that was played to the hilt. Just because something negative is covered, doesn't mean it's negative coverage. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC after bringing up the issues, went out of their way to dismiss them or just let him off the hook.

Asserting it, no matter how dismissively, doesn't make it true. Politics is all about inspiring people to vote for you, and charisma is an enormous part of that. If you think Obama isn't charismatic or that the Democratic party wouldn't have valued that charisma even if he were white, I think you're way off-base.

Anyone who votes for someone who "inspires" them is a fucking idiot. Hitler was inspirational and charismatic. We'll agree to disagree on someone who hadn't yet been elected to federal or statewide office would have gotten a keynote speech without his skin color.

I think you missed my point, actually. Thinking the (R)'s are failures is part of the calculus in determining the best candidate.

It was actually my point, and I'm glad you agree with me.

I disagree. First, the race isn't particularly close. If polls are correct, McCain has no hope, because he's way behind in states he has to have to win: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Colorado. He's even in danger of losing generally reliable red states like Montana, Georgia and North Carolina.

If it were Hillary Clinton running instead of Barack Obama, she'd be up by over 20 points. I haven't held out hope of a McCain victory for over a month, but this is a lot closer than it should be.

Second of all, the nation has been right-leaning for the past couple of decades. The only Democrat who's won the Presidency recently had to run on a platform of centrism. In a right-tilting nation, a Republican will always have a shot. Despite that, McCain is dangerously close to slipping into the "no shot" category.

I agree this country is right-leaning. I'm amazed at the level of disconnect between the beliefs of most people and the government that will represent them.

The exact same thing could have been said in 1980. It was a "throw the bums out" election, as Carter and the Democrats were blamed for everything.

The Democrats had been in White House for four years. It's hardly the same. The Democrats still held a majority in the House after that election.

Reagan embarked on a right wing crusade and, due to his charisma and ability to frame things as a building of a glorious new America, he retained his, and his party's, popularity. The exact same situation is shaping up here. Universal health care and other left-wing policies can be phenomenally popular and easily frameable as a "glorious new America." And Obama has the charisma to sell that view.

Of course, the difference is that Reagan's view was actually American. Obama's view is European. Reagan had confidence in the individual. Obama believes that the individual is incapable of doing it on his or her own. Reagan believed in being proud of American values of freedom, liberty and capitalism. Obama apologizes for them.

Whether that will actually happen, I have no idea. But it's a definite possibility. I do believe that if Obama institutes a universal health care program, it's going to be permanent. Like social security or other New Deal programs, it will simply be too popular for any party to consider trying to abolish.

Yep, government programs has a ratcheting effect. Once they're instituted, they're there. How we will pay for them is another issue. These bills are coming due. The days of being subsidized by foreign money is over. We'll see if people can live with the size of government when 65+% of your income goes to taxes. If tax freedom day happens in late August instead of early May. More government spending will lead to a destruction of this country. Less government is the answer. We're exchanging freedom for the warm comfort of slavery.

It's not like it hasn't been tried in the past, it just hasn't been tried here. There's a reason why the Soviet Bloc fell. There's a reason why Western European socialism has led to lower overall growth than the US for the past 30 years. There's a reason why our unemployment rates are lower than those in Western Europe. It's been tried and it's failed. We're about to see it's failure here, and that failure will lead to a nation of junkies waiting for the next government fix.

 

[maxiep]

Utter nonsense. If being black is all it takes, why isn't Alan Keyes president? Or Jesse Jackson? Or Harold Ford Jr? Or any other black man?

Easy. Alan Keyes is fucking crazy. Jesse Jackson was too militant, and didn't bother hiding it. Harold Ford, Jr. was on his way until the people of Tennessee saw their way fit to dumping him in an election. You really think George Bush was the Bush that was being groomed to be President? It was Jeb, but Jeb lost the race for Senate in FL. You have to win to move forward. It took a sex scandal to elect Obama.

All that stuff was widely reported. The voters just don't care about it.

It was widely reported and widely dismissed. That's why voters don't care about it.

That's true. There was more of a feeling that Nixon (and Agnew) were bad actors, but their corruption wasn't the fault of the party at large. But then, that's as it should be - the failures of the Bush administration are largely failures of policy, not personal corruption. Seems fair to blame the party in this case.

I guess if you care about Party over policy. I care about policy and McCain is more centrist than Obama. Obama is a leftist running as a centrist while McCain is a centrist running as a conservative. However, presidents govern according to their beliefs, not their campaign promises.

 

[Minstrel]

What is this "terrorist fist bump" issue? If you're talking about that New Yorker cover

I'm not. I'm talking about Obama touching fists with his wife as he passed her on the stage at a speaking event, which was then replayed endlessly for a few days on all the cable news networks with the question, "What does this signify? Is it some kind of 'terrorist fist bump'?"

And I don't agree that MSNBC or CNN were at all mocking of the Reverend Wright issue. They chattered on endlessly about whether this means Obama is anti-American and whether this kills his chances to win.

Anyone who votes for someone who "inspires" them is a fucking idiot.

Then you have a very low opinion of the US electorate. The US has generally been swayed by charisma. Gore and Kerry were seen as too robotic. The constant theme came up that "Bush was the candidate more Americans would like to have a beer with." Clinton was seen as far more charismatic than Dole or Bush the Elder, which is why neither credibly challenged Clinton. Reagan was hugely popular for his avuncular charm and many people credit his success to his ability to inspire the American people with talk of "morning in America" and Camelot imagery, "the shining city on the hill." Speaking of Camelot, we can look at JFK...his administration was labeled "Camelot," because he represented an inspirational new America to the nation.

As far as I'm concerned, the pattern is pretty clear: When a charismatic personality who's capable of inspiring the nation comes along, he tends to win and he tends to change the political climate by the way he frames his policies as a "New America," and people are excited by that. I am not saying it should or shouldn't be that way, but it seems like a pretty clear effect in US politics (and probably politics worldwide).

It was actually my point, and I'm glad you agree with me.

Well, you began by questioning whether Obama was really the best candidate. Now you seem to be on board. Being better than all the other options is the definition of being the best candidate.

If it were Hillary Clinton running instead of Barack Obama, she'd be up by over 20 points.

Making up a hypothetical, baselessly asserting a truth about it and then comparing Obama to your invented truth isn't that clever a rhetorical trick.

Of course, the difference is that Reagan's view was actually American. Obama's view is European. Reagan had confidence in the individual. Obama believes that the individual is incapable of doing it on his or her own. Reagan believed in being proud of American values of freedom, liberty and capitalism. Obama apologizes for them.

Right, your standard conservative talking points. The reality is that the US is, and has been for about a century, a mix of capitalism and socialism. Obama, as a mix of the two, is extremely American and despite being labelled as a socialist by the right, he's up big in the polls. Americans believe Obama is extremely American.

There's a reason why Western European socialism has led to lower overall growth than the US for the past 30 years.

The reason is that this isn't true. Over the past 50-60 years, Western Europe has grown faster than the US. The US GDP used to be several times larger than Western Europe's. Now, the EU has a larger GDP than the US.

It's been tried and it's failed. We're about to see it's failure here, and that failure will lead to a nation of junkies waiting for the next government fix.

We don't need to rehash your hatred of Western Europe to discuss this issue. It's been tried in the US...FDR's New Deal greatly expanded the government's role in social welfare, and the results have been extremely popular, to the point where it's become political suicide to try to abolish those deals. In fact, considering that both parties are primarily interested in winning elections and neither party embraces small government, I'd say that the evidence suggests that small government is the failure. The people have voted, and they prefer big government. If they didn't, one party would take the small government platform in order to win elections.

 

[barfo]

Easy. Alan Keyes is fucking crazy. Jesse Jackson was too militant, and didn't bother hiding it. Harold Ford, Jr. was on his way until the people of Tennessee saw their way fit to dumping him in an election. You really think George Bush was the Bush that was being groomed to be President? It was Jeb, but Jeb lost the race for Senate in FL. You have to win to move forward. It took a sex scandal to elect Obama.

So, your theory is that any black man elected to the senate will become president? Interesting, but not very plausible.

It was widely reported and widely dismissed. That's why voters don't care about it.

I think you have cause and effect reversed.

I guess if you care about Party over policy. I care about policy and McCain is more centrist than Obama. Obama is a leftist running as a centrist while McCain is a centrist running as a conservative. However, presidents govern according to their beliefs, not their campaign promises.

Most people see Bush=Republican=McCain, because for some bizarre reason, McCain chose to campaign as George Bush. And picking the female George Bush as VP cemented that.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

I'm not. I'm talking about Obama touching fists with his wife as he passed her on the stage at a speaking event, which was then replayed endlessly for a few days on all the cable news networks with the question, "What does this signify? Is it some kind of 'terrorist fist bump'?"

I believe it was referred to as a "fist dap" and was treated as a new fad. Not some terrorist fist bump.

And I don't agree that MSNBC or CNN were at all mocking of the Reverend Wright issue. They chattered on endlessly about whether this means Obama is anti-American and whether this kills his chances to win.

I watch both and I profoundly disagree.

Then you have a very low opinion of the US electorate. The US has generally been swayed by charisma. Gore and Kerry were seen as too robotic. The constant theme came up that "Bush was the candidate more Americans would like to have a beer with." Clinton was seen as far more charismatic than Dole or Bush the Elder, which is why neither credibly challenged Clinton. Reagan was hugely popular for his avuncular charm and many people credit his success to his ability to inspire the American people with talk of "morning in America" and Camelot imagery, "the shining city on the hill." Speaking of Camelot, we can look at JFK...his administration was labeled "Camelot," because he represented an inspirational new America to the nation.

As far as I'm concerned, the pattern is pretty clear: When a charismatic personality who's capable of inspiring the nation comes along, he tends to win and he tends to change the political climate by the way he frames his policies as a "New America," and people are excited by that. I am not saying it should or shouldn't be that way, but it seems like a pretty clear effect in US politics (and probably politics worldwide).

Gore didn't win because he refused to have Clinton campaign for him. Kerry didn't win because he was terrible. Clinton won because Bush broke his promise with the American people and Bob Dole ran to keep a seat warm. Reagan won twice because he showed faith in the American people and many felt government had grown too large.

Well, you began by questioning whether Obama was really the best candidate. Now you seem to be on board. Being better than all the other options is the definition of being the best candidate.

Thanks for your definiton. I have a different one. Your definition isn't superior to mine.

Making up a hypothetical, baselessly asserting a truth about it and then comparing Obama to your invented truth isn't that clever a rhetorical trick.

Check the polls that insert Hillary instead of Obama. You're welcome.

Right, your standard conservative talking points. The reality is that the US is, and has been for about a century, a mix of capitalism and socialism. Obama, as a mix of the two, is extremely American and despite being labelled as a socialist by the right, he's up big in the polls. Americans believe Obama is extremely American.

Ah, the old tactic of dismissing something by calling it "talking points". Great stuff.

I understand that the US isn't pure capitalism. Don't pretend that I believe differently. However, there are concepts that are historically American and those that are European. Don't hate me for the labels, it's a fact. As for being up in the polls, as I have said before, the corpse from "Weekend at Bernie's" would be up in the polls if he were a Democrat.

The reason is that this isn't true. Over the past 50-60 years, Western Europe has grown faster than the US. The US GDP used to be several times larger than Western Europe's. Now, the EU has a larger GDP than the US.

Yep, if you stretch it back to WWII, you're right. Of course, when you start from zero, of course it's going to be true--that's a fun trick. Over the past 30 years, as we went right and Europe went left we've grown faster. That's the better measure. The EU's growth has largely come from decreased defense spending (because we supply that defense) and the pulling in the Eastern Bloc and radically raising their standard of living.

We don't need to rehash your hatred of Western Europe to discuss this issue.

I love Western Europe. I wouldn't have lived in Scandinavia or Spain if I would have hated it. Don't try to tell me how I feel; you're really bad at it.

It's been tried in the US...FDR's New Deal greatly expanded the government's role in social welfare, and the results have been extremely popular, to the point where it's become political suicide to try to abolish those deals. In fact, considering that both parties are primarily interested in winning elections and neither party embraces small government, I'd say that the evidence suggests that small government is the failure. The people have voted, and they prefer big government. If they didn't, one party would take the small government platform in order to win elections.

At the time of the Great Depression, the Federal Government represented 3% of the GDP. FDR's programs (done out of necessity) did shift us leftward, but were hardly socialism. We'd look at the government programs enacted during the New Deal today and think they were bare bones.

As for whether or not small government is a "failure", people like something for nothing. What big government has done is to increase today's standard of living and forced future generations to pay for it. People don't make the connection between the government taking on additional debt with their kids writing the checks. I believe in paying for what you can afford. We can't afford today's government, but it's no big deal--we'll let the next generation pay for the mess.

Everyone would like big government to take care of them, as long as someone else pays for it. When they have to pay for it, they'd rather do it themselves.

 

[maxiep]

So, your theory is that any black man elected to the senate will become president? Interesting, but not very plausible.

Clever. Stupid, but clever.

I think you have cause and effect reversed.

I don't, but thanks for your concern.

Most people see Bush=Republican=McCain, because for some bizarre reason, McCain chose to campaign as George Bush. And picking the female George Bush as VP cemented that.

barfo

Or it could be that Barack Obama had six times the money the GOP did and if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes true.

 

[Minstrel]

I believe it was referred to as a "fist dap" and was treated as a new fad. Not some terrorist fist bump.

No, I'm using the words that the cable news networks used. Terrorist fist bump.

Gore didn't win because he refused to have Clinton campaign for him. Kerry didn't win because he was terrible. Clinton won because Bush broke his promise with the American people and Bob Dole ran to keep a seat warm. Reagan won twice because he showed faith in the American people and many felt government had grown too large.

And Obama is winning because he speaks to the concerns of the majority of Americans better than McCain. But inspiration/charisma has been attached to all of the above races as a major factor, and it's a major factor in this one.

Thanks for your definiton. I have a different one. Your definition isn't superior to mine.

It's the actual definition of "best." Superior to all the alternatives.

Check the polls that insert Hillary instead of Obama. You're welcome.

Polls of a hypothetical race don't hold any water because the GOP hasn't spent the last several months campaigning against Clinton. She hasn't had to go through the mud of the national race. Nice try, though.

I understand that the US isn't pure capitalism. Don't pretend that I believe differently. However, there are concepts that are historically American and those that are European. Don't hate me for the labels, it's a fact.

I don't hate you for pretending that your political views are facts. Social programs have been an important part of the US political scene for many decades. There's nothing European about them. You go on to claim that the US and Europe "diverged 30 years ago" in terms of who went right and who went left. Social welfare has been a part of the US government for much longer than 30 years.

Yep, if you stretch it back to WWII, you're right. Of course, when you start from zero, of course it's going to be true--that's a fun trick. Over the past 30 years, as we went right and Europe went left we've grown faster. That's the better measure.

And even over the last 30 years, it isn't true. Western Europe had a smaller GDP than the US 30 years ago and now the EU has a larger GDP.

I love Western Europe. I wouldn't have lived in Scandinavia or Spain if I would have hated it. Don't try to tell me how I feel; you're really bad at it.

You've gone on and on about how poor the living experience is in Europe, how in Scandinavia, the people are all slaves to government and therefore inferior. I can't imagine how I got the idea that you dislike it. Clearly, despite believing them to be inferior people, with worse living standards and enslaving governments, you love Western Europe.

At the time of the Great Depression, the Federal Government represented 3% of the GDP. FDR's programs (done out of necessity) did shift us leftward, but were hardly socialism.

Of course they weren't socialism. Just as today the US isn't socialist and Obama isn't a socialist. But expanded government succeeded then and has continued to succeed, to the point that both major parties embrace it. FDR's New Deal was explicitly an attempt to "spread the wealth," to cut down on poverty rates, especially among the elderly. The idea that Obama's belief in spreading the wealth would be a wholly new approach to government in the US is absurd. It was an explicit principle for FDR and cascading tax systems with social welfare programs have been an assumed part of the government ever since.

 

[Shooter]

And whose to say Obama is the better candidate? He's a Democrat in the most anti-Republican year in my lifetime. Mister Hanky could have run as a Democrat and beaten a Republican. And even given that, it took the collapse of the credit markets to ensure his victory.

For God's sake, the election isn't until tomorrow. Could you please hold off on the doom and gloom until and if it actually happens?

 

[barfo]

Clever. Stupid, but clever.

Then perhaps you could explain your theory that Obama only got elected because he was black? How is it that his blackness has that effect, but no other black man's blackness has that effect? Could it be that he's special in some way other than his skin color?

Or it could be that Barack Obama had six times the money the GOP did and if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes true.

No, you said yourself that McCain was a centrist running as a conservative. I was just agreeing with you. He ran as a conservative, which, arguably, he really isn't, in a year when the public didn't want a conservative. That has nothing to do with money. Of course the money helped Obama, but it didn't force McCain to pander to the right.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

For God's sake, the election isn't until tomorrow. Could you please hold off on the doom and gloom until and if it actually happens?

Too many things were stacked against him. The anger in this country is leading to an irrational decision. The abuse of power and the unwillingness to stick to their principles cost the GOP. Democrats don't hold their candidates to a higher standard; Republicans do. The current GOP hasn't lived up to the standards set, and they'll pay the price.

I have stated this election has been over for a month.

 

[maxiep]

Then perhaps you could explain your theory that Obama only got elected because he was black? How is it that his blackness has that effect, but no other black man's blackness has that effect? Could it be that he's special in some way other than his skin color?

I always enjoy it when you feign to be obtuse.

No, you said yourself that McCain was a centrist running as a conservative. I was just agreeing with you. He ran as a conservative, which, arguably, he really isn't, in a year when the public didn't want a conservative. That has nothing to do with money. Of course the money helped Obama, but it didn't force McCain to pander to the right.

barfo

Of course the money forced McCain to run to the only base that would have him. How else could he have raised that $85MM to get the government to match. This was a guy who ran his campaign on a shoestring during the primaries because the GOP base wouldn't support him.