Wow, McCain Finally Gets A Hit

[Денг Гордон]

Thank God Obama won this debate, and this should lock up the election.

Apparently this slid under the radar today, McCain was trying to hide it under the debate. McCain's campaign is surrendering in Maine and Wisconsin. WISCONSIN. The closest state in 2000 I believe, and the third closes state in 2004 (I might have these two flipped around), both within .3% I believe.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

The outcome of the election is irrelevant to me. I have no faith in McCain whatsoever. I disagree with Obama's politics.

I just hope for a stronger, more traditional return to conservative ideals, not this bastardization of the GOP.

 

[Денг Гордон]

The outcome of the election is irrelevant to me. I have no faith in McCain whatsoever. I disagree with Obama's politics.

I just hope for a stronger, more traditional return to conservative ideals, not this bastardization of the GOP.

Then you should be hoping for Obama to win 409 EV (which I have pegged as his absolute ceiling this election). That would completely shake up the GOP and would lead to the elimination of the Neo-Cons from the party, and actual Republicans could begin to take over the party again.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Then you should be hoping for Obama to win 409 EV (which I have pegged as his absolute ceiling this election). That would completely shake up the GOP and would lead to the elimination of the Neo-Cons from the party, and actual Republicans could begin to take over the party again.

Like I said, irrelevant to me. I don't follow it anymore. I'll likely vote for a third party candidate that I agree with. Right now its Alan Keyes.

 

[¹²³]

Third party is a really good way to go. Everyone should at least take a look at that option.

 

[44Thrilla]

Third party is a really good way to go. Everyone should at leat take a look at that option.

I have considered 3rd party candidates in the past, but I always viewed it as throwing my vote away. I will vote for who I think is the best candidate out of the 2 major parties, even if I disagree with some of their policies.

 

[mook]

A term one of the talking heads used tonight that sticks in my mind is "No Drama Obama." More than his eloquence or his race or his particular policies, I wonder if that is the real driving force of his campaign. After the chronic bad management of the Dubya years, and all the wacky high jinks of the Bubba years, you have to go all the way back to Bush Sr. to find an administration run by responsible adults in a competent manner.

You listen to Obama speak and you see the brilliant organization of his campaign and the lack of sniping and in-fighting and turnover of his staff, and you can't help but think he's competent. There really isn't much drama there.

Sure, there are lots of old stories about Ayers and Rizco and Wright and now ACORN. And there are the internet rumors of him being a muslim radical or a black panther or whatever. But when you see Obama talk or you attend one of his events or you watch one of his ads, they all seem professional, organized and competent. None of it looks sleazy. It keeps all the usual mud from sticking, and it makes the mud Obama slings himself seem less about him and more about McCain.

People don't believe that Obama is the most experienced or even necessarily the most ethical person of the two candidates. I can easily imagine we'll have the usual petty scandals every administration cooks up, and maybe even a whopper or two.

But it's hard to imagine an Obama administration will be incompetent or mired in sexual scandals. You may not agree with his liberal policies, but you probably have to agree that if we have to have a liberal in the White House, he's the least likely to screw it up.

 

[Denny Crane]

you probably have to agree that if we have to have a liberal in the White House, he's the least likely to screw it up.

We had a liberal in the white house for the past 8 years. Well, he was certainly not a conservative.

 

[maxiep]

We had a liberal in the white house for the past 8 years. Well, he was certainly not a conservative.

 

[mook]

We had a liberal in the white house for the past 8 years. Well, he was certainly not a conservative.

It's so tough to pin a label on the Bush Jr administration. I totally see where you are coming from, but I don't think it's that black and white. He had some starkly liberal policies (No Child, prescription drugs, massive increases in spending on government). But he also had some starkly conservative policies (huge tax cuts, supreme court nominees, war, energy).

In the long run, I don't think he'll be remembered as a conservative or liberal president, but as an extremist president. Dubya did nothing half-way or in moderation. He didn't do "itty bitty" (in his own words). If a little conservatism was good in tax policy, then a lot of conservatism was better. If a little liberalism in prescription drugs was good, then a lot was better.

Anyway, that he was incompetent was my major point. I think Americans are willing to live with some extremism if they feel like the day-to-day business of governing is being done well.

And that's why I think Obama wins this election.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's so tough to pin a label on the Bush Jr administration. I totally see where you are coming from, but I don't think it's that black and white. He had some starkly liberal policies (No Child, prescription drugs, massive increases in spending on government). But he also had some starkly conservative policies (huge tax cuts, supreme court nominees, war, energy).

In the long run, I don't think he'll be remembered as a conservative or liberal president, but as an extremist president. Dubya did nothing half-way or in moderation. If a little conservatism was good in tax policy, then a lot of conservatism was better. If a little liberalism in prescription drugs was good, then a lot was better.

Anyway, that he was incompetent was my major point. I think Americans are willing to live with some extremism if they feel like the day-to-day business of governing is being done well.

And that's why I think Obama wins this election.

I'm not seeing why having a $billionaire (Soros) own the govt. is better than having a lot of big corporations own it. In fact, I think it's far worse (is Soros even a US citizen?)

Obama wins the election because he has unlimited money. I'm not seeing anything else, really, to justify it on other terms.

 

[Minstrel]

GWB was socially conservative and fiscally liberal (with exceptions in both cases, of course). I think mook's thought on Bush being an "extremist" president is quite good.

 

[Denny Crane]

GWB was socially conservative and fiscally liberal (with exceptions in both cases, of course). I think mook's thought on Bush being an "extremist" president is quite good.

Bush wasn't liberal fiscally. He's spent money like a democrat, and on things democrats would spend on. Spending on all things not military/war related are up to an alarming degree (50%-300%). He pushed for one of the largest social programs since the New Deal (medicare prescription drugs), and has also instituted some of the most restrictive regulations on business since the New Deal (Sarbanes-Oxley to name one of many). The recent bailout package is not something a traditional republican or conservative would ever consider.

I think we're going to find his justice appointments turn out to be more "liberal" than the left fears.

 

[Minstrel]

Bush wasn't liberal fiscally. He's spent money like a democrat, and on things democrats would spend on. Spending on all things not military/war related are up to an alarming degree (50%-300%).

Yes, that's what "liberal" fiscal policy generally means. Increased spending on programs.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, that's what "liberal" spending generally means. Increased spending on programs.

That's not "liberal" spending, it's "progressive" type spending. The distinction is an important one.

The tax cuts were "liberal."

 

[mook]

Obama wins the election because he has unlimited money. I'm not seeing anything else, really, to justify it on other terms.

Really? You think his campaign has demonstrated that he's as lousy an organizer as Hillary and McCain?

Because it seemed to me Hillary's campaign was a disaster of mixed messages and in-fighting. When her husband went off the reservation (multiple times) she didn't seem to have any control over it, and it cost her enormously (particularly among blacks). Hillary didn't think caucuses even mattered until after Super Tuesday. I haven't heard a peep about problems within the Obama campaign, and when Michelle Obama said she was "finally proud of America", Obama kept it from becoming the death spiral of followup statements that Bill Clinton made.

McCain has hired and fired everybody managing his campaign about three times, and he's altered his message from being the standup hero to basically being less scummy than his opponent. Obama hasn't had any noteable turnover, and his message of "hope" and "change", although corny and somewhat tired, is pretty much the same thing he was saying two years ago.

Sure, Obama has a huge wad of dough to draw on. But he didn't two years ago. Fact is that of the three major contenders for the presidency, Obama was by far the smartest and best organized of them. You may feel like that isn't a terribly important qualification for the presidency, but I think a lot of Americans do.

 

[Minstrel]

That's not "liberal" spending, it's "progressive" type spending. The distinction is an important one.

Not to me, as "liberal" and "progressive" tend to mean the same thing in American politics. I often do use "progressive" instead of "liberal" to describe traditional left-leaning politics, since "liberal" means something else in Europe, but when discussing US politics, I'm prone to using them as synonyms.

And it can legitimately be used to describe progressive politics. The first dictionary definition of "liberal":

"favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs."

 

[Denny Crane]

Really? You think his campaign has demonstrated that he's as lousy an organizer as Hillary and McCain?

Because it seemed to me Hillary's campaign was a disaster of mixed messages and in-fighting. When her husband went off the reservation (multiple times) she didn't seem to have any control over it, and it cost her enormously (particularly among blacks). Hillary didn't think caucuses even mattered until after Super Tuesday. I haven't heard a peep about problems within the Obama campaign, and when Michelle Obama said she was "finally proud of America", Obama kept it from becoming the death spiral of followup statements that Bill Clinton made.

McCain has hired and fired everybody managing his campaign about three times, and he's altered his message from being the standup hero to basically being less scummy than his opponent. Obama hasn't had any noteable turnover, and his message of "hope" and "change", although corny and somewhat tired, is pretty much the same thing he was saying two years ago.

Sure, Obama has a huge wad of dough to draw on. But he didn't two years ago. Fact is that of the three major contenders for the presidency, Obama was by far the smartest and best organized of them. You may feel like that isn't a terribly important qualification for the presidency, but I think a lot of Americans do.

My impression is that many of the big traditional Clinton financial backers threw their support behind Obama from day 1. Obama made some strategic decisions in the primaries that got him a plurality of the elected delegates, like focusing on the caucuses while Hilary blew them off.

I don't see that the Obama campaign is particularly well organized beyond what having a ton of cash buys (lots of people in lots of places). If it were so well organized, Hilary wouldn't have made it as close as she did, nor would she have won 14 of the last 15 (something like that) primaries.

When you have the media on your side as a blatant cheering section, it's not surprising the mistakes the campaign makes and has made aren't well publicized.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not to me, as "liberal" and "progressive" tend to mean the same thing in American politics. I often do use "progressive" instead of "liberal" to describe traditional left-leaning politics, since "liberal" means something else in Europe, but when discussing US politics, I'm prone to using them as synonyms.

And it can legitimately be used to describe progressive politics. The first dictionary definition of "liberal":

"favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs."

I am a Liberal in the true sense of the word, but I am not a Progressive in any sense of the word. I am favorable to progress or reform. I am not favorable to the notion that govt. is the solution to much of any problem.

"Neo-Liberal" might be a better synonym, in the line of reasoning as the root of "Neo-Conservative." But that's confusing because "Neo-Liberal" actually means "Those who have rediscovered true Liberalism" vs. "some new form of conservatism that isn't really conservatism."

 

[mook]

Not to me, as "liberal" and "progressive" tend to mean the same thing in American politics. I often do use "progressive" instead of "liberal" to describe traditional left-leaning politics, since "liberal" means something else in Europe, but when discussing US politics, I'm prone to using them as synonyms.

I use "liberal" and "progressive" interchangeably to describe myself. Most liberals do, mostly because conservatives have been so successful at demonizing "liberal" that "progressive" is easier for most to swallow.

I almost never use the word "Liberal" in its traditional economic usage of "free trade."

I can see how it grates on some. I'll always be annoyed by the pronunciation "nuke-you-lar".

But what can you do? Words change over time. I know I sound anachronistic and overly concerned with semantics when I get uptight about "nuke-you-lar". I think others sound that way when they get uptight about "liberal vs Liberal vs progressive."

 

[Денг Гордон]

My impression is that many of the big traditional Clinton financial backers threw their support behind Obama from day 1. Obama made some strategic decisions in the primaries that got him a plurality of the elected delegates, like focusing on the caucuses while Hilary blew them off.

I don't see that the Obama campaign is particularly well organized beyond what having a ton of cash buys (lots of people in lots of places). If it were so well organized, Hilary wouldn't have made it as close as she did, nor would she have won 14 of the last 15 (something like that) primaries.

When you have the media on your side as a blatant cheering section, it's not surprising the mistakes the campaign makes and has made aren't well publicized.

Hillary Clinton was so far ahead, and he had to make up a lot of ground.

If you look at the last 16 primaries (unfair to cut it down to 15, since the 3 earliest ones in that bunch were on the same day), Obama won 7 of those contests, Hillary 8, and they drawed in Guam. Hardly losing 14 of the last 15 primaries.

 

[Denny Crane]

I use "liberal" and "progressive" interchangeably to describe myself. Most liberals do, mostly because conservatives have been so successful at demonizing "liberal" that "progressive" is easier for most to swallow.

I almost never use the word "Liberal" in its traditional economic usage of "free trade."

I can see how it grates on some. I'll always be annoyed by the pronunciation "nuke-you-lar".

But what can you do? Words change over time. I know I sound anachronistic and overly concerned with semantics when I get uptight about "nuke-you-lar". I think others sound that way when they get uptight about "liberal vs Liberal vs progressive."

It's true that republicans have demonized the word "liberal" to describe progressives. Paul Wellstone didn't call himself a liberal, he called himself a progressive - which is how it should be.

"Progressive" is an actual political movement in the USA going back to the 1800s at least. It's not like some new word that needs a synonym.