McCain ad compares Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton

This is what I want leading my country--a mudslinging guy who's so desperate for attention he'll do ANYTHING to get the camera back on himself.

Of course, he could always say something positive about himself, but he needs to fill the whole 30 seconds...

So who do we compare McCain to?

Old, stodgy, whiney voice...George Bush twenty years from now?

Maybe Abe Vigoda.

The funny thing is, WE"LLl be the ones making such funny comparisons... Obama doesn't need to lower himself to McCain's level.

This is so pathetic. What are the important issues of the day? Have we none?

Ad, successful!

Not.

Yes, codyed, among the thirty percent who will vote for McCain even if he has his picture taken clapping OBL on the back, this ad, as all the others are a success. For the other seventy percent of voters who are not stupid (I am amazed at how stupid Republics are) will understand the ad for what it is, an unreasoned, nonsensical attack on Obama from nowhere. I'm sure John Kerry's remarks on this ad will be all over YouTube tomorrow, if they are not already.

This is pure bunkum and if the American people swallow it, they deserve four more years of lunacy from the White House.

The next thing you know, John McCain will want us to take the liquid hydrocarbons off the surface of Titan to solve the gas crisis.

geneg>

Could the Britney/Paris comparison be the swiftboat of 2008?

nope

I guess McCain's people have forgotten about this.

Judging from the comments, another example of why Republicans should avoid "humor":

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/01/mccain-ad-on-obama-they-will-cal...

Meanwhile, McCain's campaign is "blessed" by Rev. John Hagee. This clench-jawed, passive aggressive humor suits McCain perfectly. However, I am surprised McCain played his 'Obama played the race card' card so early, which shows some desperation to change the narrative from inevitable Republican defeat in November. On the other hand, this might be McCain's best strategy: spin out absurd over-reactions to justified criticisms of the basic Republican political playbook (from Atwater to Rove). Otherwise, he is reduced to blaming Obama for high gas prices, which only shows that surrealism is alive and well.

As I have noted elsewhere-

I hope to see an Obama commercial in the future, with clips of the "Maverick" sucking up to George Bush (whose minions spread the most despicable lies about McCain in 2000), Jerry Falwell, John Hagee and anyone else who can help his campaign limp along. (Seriously, how many “mavericks” do you know who travel with a set of knee-pads?)

Or maybe Obama’s supporters can hit YouTube with a video called called "The OLD One", playing off that sure-fire Charlton Heston imagery. Sample narration: "Senator, I knew Moses. Moses was a friend of mine. Senator…you're no Moses!"

Sorry if I have implied that McCain is too old, but can you imagine a Presidential motorcade creeping through downtown DC....with all the turn signals flashing.

*rim-shot!*

Does Cindy McCain have a personal astrologer? I understand astrology proved very helpful when Reagan began to have some difficulties.

See. This ad did exactly what it was intended to do. This thread is proof.

16
You keep saying that, but what did it do other than make McCain look like an old, out of touch fool?

I hear that when they showed him the clip from "The Ten Commandments", he said "Hey! You mean films are in COLOR now?!"

And this after they finally broke him of the habit of calling them "talkies".

It demonstrated his campaign is peopled with operatives who don't have a clue. I actually feel sorry for my reasonaable, thinking, considerate Republican friends. Or maybe I only have 1; I don't remember many.

codyed's point is that we are talking about it but that overlooks the fact that none of us will be influenced by it. We are the choir Obama may be preaching to....

Speaking of "choir", here's another McCain ad that will surely make some here froth at the mouth.

(Oh, you've given me such a wonderful lead in with that line, Maggie)

you are very welcome - all in the name of lively dialog -

19
This is the ad that I was referencing in #11/13 above. Can't say that I'm frothing, but rather shaking my head with the sheer goofiness of it.

Seriously, do they really think that some old footage of Charley Heston is going to get McCain any votes? Does anyone under 50 (or not affiliated with the NRA) even know who Charleton Heston was?

That's the unintentional humor of the Spears/Hilton stuff, it's all so much yesterday's news, but the codgers in charge of the McCain campaign think that the references will have some kind of - what? - shock value?

And keep in mind that if this is McCain's best stuff (and I'm betting that it is) it will serve as a speed bump at best. These out of context splicings of Obama saying this and that may sway some of the older voters, but most of us are pretty immune to ads like that.

And in truth, Obama hasn't even made a move yet: wait until his team presents an ad with McCain saying "We'll stay in Iraq for the next hundred years if we have to." Unlike McCain's dribble, that isn't abstract-- it's not out of context and we know exactly what it means. That's bad news for McCain, for those who are currently undecided will definitely be swayed by it.

Well, if Obama's operatives want to take the "flip-flop" approach that works so well for the Republicans, McCain has certainly given enough to chose from.

>21 Makifat:

Seriously, do they really think that some old footage of Charley Heston is going to get McCain any votes? Does anyone under 50 (or not affiliated with the NRA) even know who Charleton Heston was?

And the really odd thing about that - McCain's elderly voters might all have heart attacks if they perceive the Charlton Heston ad to be blasphemous.

You guys seem to be forgetting one thing--old people usually vote in large numbers. Young folk, on the other hand, those who make up a significant portion of Obama's constituency, have a pesky habit making a lot of noise and then reneging on their promise to actually vote for their guy (or gal!). And considering how Obama has yet to significantly pull away from McCain at this point in the polls (especially given the sweetheart coverage he has been receiving from the press), Obama's Messianic Marauders for Hope better have a contingency plan.

(I say blame whitey. That usually works best when in a tight spot)

codyed>

Remember though--fewer of Obama's supporters will die between now and November.

You don't know youth, do you?

Good point.

#25: (especially given the sweetheart coverage he has been receiving from the press)

Wasn't there a recent study of the mainstream broadcast media showing that Obama was being portrayed negatively in 72% of statements made on the air? That's some strange notion of how to treat a "sweetheart."

Just like the Swift Boats in 2004, they have been giving McCain's commercials a lot of free air time, under the guise of commentary.

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

If the media center classifies these reasonable conjectures as negative statements, then it's reasonable to suggest one will end up with a study showing Obama receiving disproportionately more negative coverage than McCain. Obama is a unique presidential candidate unlike anyone we have seen to date. So the base from which we analyze his candidacy is different from what we analyze McCain's or even Clinton's. So there are more unknowns to take into consideration when discussing Obama. But that doesn't necessarily imply that the press has been resoundingly negative to Obama.

Don't be surprised if such methodological nuttiness was responsible for the wild swings in each candidate's "positive" and "negative" proportions through time.

The only thing this study demonstrates is that it is difficult to measure media bias through keywords without giving any consideration to context.

Trash it. Next, please.

I saw the ad again Saturday. It amazes me that negative ads are more effective than positive ones, that fear of 'X' automatically implies that 'Y' is the right choice.

I just hope Obama stays the high road. When Hilary tried the "Who do you want answering the phone at 3 AM?" spin it made a small dent, but ultimately it didn't work.

Today Obama laughed it off and then went right back to talking to voters like they were adults--the economy, the time table for Iraq, etc. What a concept.

...that fear of 'X' automatically implies that 'Y' is the right choice.

That's at least partly the result of the voting system used. If we used the instant runoff vote then a candidate might be afraid that a negative ad would just cause the voter to switch their number one and two candidate and not help them at all. (For example if you ranked the Democrat and then the Green candidates ahead of the Republican then all a Republican attack ad might do is cause you to change your order to Green, then Democrat, then Republican, which is no help to the Republican).

I wonder if that's a human trait or if it's more common here in our culture: the practice of saying bad things about your opponent vs. saying good things about yourself. I mean, imagine a Coke commercial talking about how bad Pepsi is, or a White Sox commercial asking you "sure the Cubs are popular, but can they WIN?"

When the first thing out of your mouth is about your competition rather than about yourself, I think you've already lost in a way.

Apparently Paris Hilton's Mom, a McCain donor, doesn't like the ad featuring her daughter.

#31: "If the media center classifies these reasonable conjectures as negative statements, then it's reasonable to suggest one will end up with a study showing Obama receiving disproportionately more negative coverage than McCain."

Wait a minute, if the 72% negative coverage includes negative "reasonable conjecture," how does that square with your allegation of him being treated as a "sweetheart" by the media?

Facts give things an unacceptable perception, especially when the only way your positions make sense is if you torture all the facts out of them and give them the "proper" perspective.

Remember, perception trumps reality. Anyone can be happy if they just maintain the "proper" perspective.

codyed, I don't think anyone here believes Bush can't read (even if it does seem that way), but that still doesn't mean he's not stupid. Dumb people can't help it. Stupid people can but won't. George W. Bush is stupid.

So after hearing all day yesterday about how Obama "flip-flopped" on offshore drilling, I came across this little item....

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/oil_company_executives.p...

John McCain, what a maverick!

As it becomes more and more evident that speculation is what drove oil through the roof, I say instead of taxing the Big Oil, tax speculative gains on oil at 75% and use the funds to send every registered automobile a set amount.

This would have two effects: first and foremost it would discourage speculative bubbles blowing in the future, and it would give some relief to the guy who can't look for work because he can't afford the gas. I have no use for speculators.

On another related issue. One of the reasons gasoline and diesel are so expensive is our lack of refining capacity. I heard the other day that Democrats (and Republics, I'm sure) in Colorado are really in favor of off-shore drilling. I have a proposal: as I recall there is a huge open area just north of Colorado Springs on the interstate to Denver that would make a great location for a massive new refinery. How about we have all the oil drilled from new wells in the Gulf, Florida and California refined in Colorado.

"How about we have all the oil drilled from new wells in the Gulf, Florida and California refined in Colorado."

What, and have a big ol' pipeline cutting across my state?! What if it springs a leak and fouls up our beautiful desert?

Not in My Backyard!

Actually, there's a big piece of land near Crawford, Texas called - what?- Prairie Flower, Prairie Dawn (I forget). Let's build the refineries there.

Pipelines are not that bad. In fact, here in Alaska we are absolutely lusting for a gas pipeline.

I thought it was the moose who were lusting for pipelines.

so, have you seen the Paris Hilton TV piece where she declares that the effect of the McCain piece was to declare that she is running for President and that she is game for it. Bring it on. Maybe we will get a female president for a change.

I saw that ad! Finally, I have some (not much mind you, but some...) respect for her. It was quite funny, and her proposal for dealing with the current oil crisis made more sense than ANYTHING McCain has said (on any subject, come to think of it). She'd never get my vote, but it was still a well-executed response.

So this is what's going to end up splitting the white male vote. Just when that demographic was finally going to count for something!

It still worries me that people fall for this gibberish--that ads like the ones McCain has put out will actually sway people in this country. It's like the swiftboat saga all over again. The Republican party has no shame whatsoever--if it scores points, they'll say it.

To me, McCain seems like a doctor who's saying that even though the other doctors within his same practice have failed you, he will not. He doesn't say what he'll do different or how, he just reiterates that he won't fail you. Then he pats you on the back, says goodbye, and is gone without even giving you a diagnosis. All style, absolutely no substance.

"I will bring them to justice"--"We will do what's necessary to turn this economy around"--"We will stay in Iraq until the mission is complete", etc. etc. It's so bland it almost seems like it's a parody. And people buy it. even without substance. That's just nauseating.

Truthfully I don't think the race is as close as some make it out to be. Two things 1) I suspect that the polling tends to neglect younger voters who are overwhelmingly in favor of Obama--witness the huge numbers he was getting in the primaries and 2) state by state polling has Obama carrying the entire northeast, the pacific west, parts of the midwest and very competitive in states in the southwest, midwest where he's not comfortably ahead and even a couple states in the south. He's eating into many more red states than vice-versa.

A president is not elected by how he does in a national poll--he wins by accumulating electoral votes state by state.

As for McCain's ads they are not anything really out of the ordinary. He is still looking for some real traction and his campaign not being long on ideas--mainly because for him to get the nomination he had to tie himself to the Bush agenda--he faces a daunting task.

I hope you're right. I just feel like these elections always seem to come down to something out of left field, something that 3 weeks ago wasn't even a topic and suddenly it has the momentum that screams "dumbing down".

And I'm not really against the Republicans as much as I'm against staying the course with the runaway train we're on now.

If I could ask McCain one question it would be "What grade would you give the Bush administation in its 2nd term?" I know he'd dodge it but I'd love to see him squirm while he spun his wheels.

Is this the person you want to spend the next four years with? I hate to say it, but age does matter - a lot.

I thought LT was about books! These are virulent comments.

Actually this is a bit mild for Pro and Con.

kerrlm, which comments are virulent? To paraphrase somebody Virulence in the defense of truth is no vice. (Nixon, maybe, Reagan? Heaven forbid I should ever speak, paraphrase, or otherwise continue some Reagan meme). Reagan's why we're in this fix.

You want virulent? Go take a look at the Political Conservatives group. One of 'em has posted a photo of Nazi Book Burning comparing the act with *gasp* liberalism.

>47 jasonseidner:

It's like the swiftboat saga all over again. The Republican party has no shame whatsoever--if it scores points, they'll say it.

Well, here is what one Republican analyst is recommending.

And,from the same site, the Rasmussen Report's current electoral college projection.

53> Barry Goldwater.

Here's another electoral map.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

>56 jjwilson61: Thank God it wasn't Reagan.

>55 oregonobsessionz:
Did you read this article. This guy is looney. Take on Obama over his economic proposals? This guy's smokin' funny stuff.

We have real, empirical evidence that Reagonomics only works for the top few percent and is absolutely disastrous to everyone else. Come on, I'm tired of being told how much better the economy is after thirty years of Reaganomics. I'm tired of having my money stolen from me by inflation, government, and financiers, only to be put in the pockets of the super-rich. I don't mind paying taxes for the support of all, but I sure as hell resent being lied to about how much better off it's going to make me when I can see that it isn't. Regardless of what T. Boone may think is the greatest transfer of economic wealth in history, it's not what we pay for overseas oil, it's what's being stolen from us by our government, either directly through taxation, or indirectly through financial manipulation, and given willy-nilly to financiers who make money out of nothing, creating inflation on our end and incredible wealth for themselves on the other end. Somehow the trickle is all upward and has become a gravity defying river. Anyone here not in debt? My guess is some here are drowning in the stuff and it just keeps flowing. This, my friends, is Reaganomics at the source.

I'm retired, but many of my friends are not. Many of them work 60-70 hours 7 days a week under high stress time lines that are nothing more than corporate games of beat the clock that only engender fear. Fear of the boss, fear of losing ones job, fear of screwing up (which is much likelier to occur under these stressful conditions than if everyone just settled down to a more humane work experience), fear of those young people coming along making much less and still able to outperform under these brutal conditions that have nothing to do with working hard and everything to do with wage-slave labor, fear of dying of some environmental cancer or a heart attack from the stress. Our lives have become capsules of fear, OBL can only dream of instilling as much fear in us as we are already inflicting upon ourselves, and while this is going on our handlers are lulling us to sleep with the most preposterous lullabies.

This is just one more thing I hate (yes hate, it is perfectly acceptable to hate evil) about the Republics: they are stealing my wallet, my children's future, and my quality of life, all so they can become "masters of the universe". What is it I always say, the first thing we do when it all goes south is we close the airports so the bastards can't get out.

Ahhh, that felt good! It's been a while.

>58 geneg:

Yes, I did read the article. Morris has been a successful strategist, and he isn't particularly dogmatic. Although his sympathies are decidedly right wing, he will work for anyone, including Clinton.

Morris is recommending an approach that has worked well for the Republicans in the past, and they are likely to use it again. One thing the Republicans have been able to do with great success (or devastation, depending on your point of view) is to reduce their agenda items to phrases that can be put on a bumper sticker. Just one example: it’s pretty amazing to hear rants about the “death tax” from a blue collar worker with a net worth in 5 figures.

You think they can’t take on Obama’s economic proposals? Think again. Who would have thought that a Texas National Guard dropout like Bush could take on Kerry's military record? But he did, with the combination of the Swift Boat liars and dumping some fake documents on Dan Rather's staff. (Oh yeah, and the fake photo with Jane Fonda.)

Kerry thought the Swift Boat allegations were too ridiculous to justify a response, so he stood by while the so-called mainstream media gave the Swift Boaters millions of dollars in free air play. (How many times have you seen the McCain ad with Spears and Hilton, and how many of those were actually paid air time?)

And who knows what Rather was thinking? To anyone old enough to have worked on a typewriter instead of a PC, the documents were blatantly obvious fakes. The content of the documents was probably at least 90% true, but once the fake documents were exposed, Bush's history with the National Guard became completely untouchable for the rest of the campaign. Karl Rove’s signature all over that one.

Fasten your seat belt…it’s going to be a wild ride between now and November.

geneg>

I've said for a while that fear is the basis of our whole economy--fear of not having enough, not looking impressive, falling behind, missing a big opportunity, not looking out for your kids, eating the wrong stuff, not saving enough money, etc. "You bought that new cell phone? Oh--you should have waited...they have a new one coming out in October. I already ordered mine."

That's our culture--fear of not doing the great thing or not having the best product or not being at the best party on New Years. It never ends.

oregonobsessionz>

You're right, it's unbelievable, that Republican analyst. Who cares who's responsible for the current free fall we're in economically--let's make people afraid of Obama's inexperience.
Whatever it takes to win, right?

Absolutely no shame.

More on McCain's strategy.

And, if all else fails, this option always worked for Bush.

What I don't understand is this: I'm not necessarily the brightest bulb in the chandelier but I can see the failures of Reaganomics just as plainly as the palm of my hand. Why doesn't everyone else see them? I'm stunned, amazed, and appalled at those making in the five figures working in nearly intolerable conditions who rabidly support all the policies designed to keep them on the edge of poverty and fear. Is there something about them that leaves them blind to the failures of our current economic system? Is it that they don't want their hard-earned money going to non-existent "Welfare Queens", but are perfectly happy to help line the pockets of Wall Street at their own expense?!?!? I know the temptation is just to call them stupid and walk away, Lord knows I've done that more than once, but I don't really think that's it. I think there is something in these people that engenders belief in anything told them by authority, or told them by the "not other", through identity politics. But what is the essence of that "identity"?

I've been toying with this for some time now, and I know it may seem silly, but after taking the Myers-Briggs test I discovered I was an INTP. I was bowled over by this description of an INTP personality type. It's as if whoever wrote this knew me better than I know myself. (I had problems getting to this page, If it doesn't work for you there are others describing INTP's, but I didn't think they did it so well.)

If this test nailed me so well, why couldn't it nail the other fifteen personality types just as well? How much of our politics is simply an expression of our own personality types? Most (if not all) of us are intractable in those positions we hold that define us to ourselves, especially religious and political beliefs, is it because of the way we're wired? Do all INTP's feel the same as I on the major issues of the day? Is there any reason for us to be here since obviously not everyone listens to reason (not INTP reason, anyway)? Are their other ways we should be approaching each other than constant head banging?

It sure would be nice if everyone here took the Myers-Briggs test and posted our types for analysis (by the INTP's in the group, of course). I would like to see what predictive power this test might have for someones politics. I know some might take umbrage at such a request, but I sure am curious. It could certainly open new paths for communication.

(ed. to change link to Myers-Briggs test to a free online test)

PH's take on it ...

http://www.latimes.com/video/?clipId=2773382&clipFormat=wmv&topVideoCatN...

geneg > just for reference I am an INTj.

A lot of this nonsense comes from the propaganda that ordinary people have a real stake in the global marketplace through such things as their 401k plan. People think they are or can be part of the real equation. We're all investors--we all have a stake in globalization. Part of the scheme of things though is that the real chumps will always be on the bottom. Everything now is tied into finance--chasing debits and credits around the globe and nothing into production of goods. We do not have to produce goods anymore. Money makes money. A dollar you spend in China and Saudi Arabia will sooner or later someday come back home. Reagan bought into this, Thatcher bought into this and Bush 1 really bought into it and unfortunately for democrats so did Clinton--who allegedly said to Robert Rubin at the beginning of his administration--'You mean to tell me that the success of my (economic) program hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f---ing bond traders?' These people would like us to believe that we can borrow and spend our way to prosperity.That's what we do these days--borrow and spend. We don't save. We don't produce goods. We buy things we don't really need. It's been mostly republicans pushing this global agenda though a number of influential democrats as well.

As for work place enviroments--if the company or organization you work for is very large it more than likely has a bloated bureaucracy on top which grew and grew when times were 'good'. Now that times aren't so good there's a mad scramble--at least in some places more will be demanded of productive employees--less productive employees will tend to spend their time scheming to protect themselves and if need be kill somebody else off. People will act according to their nature. I don't know what to say--if you have to deal with that--you have to deal with it the best you can. We are currently faced somewhat with this same perspective where I work. Generally speaking I find it hard to take seriously someone who trades in fear--I have always been a bit of an iconoclast, a bit of an existentialist, a bit of a mocker and a bit obnoxious. To put it another way--impertinent. I don't suck up. I don't take bribes and I don't eat food that I don't bring to work myself. I don't refuse to do my job. I take it seriously because it has paid for my home--it has helped me bring up my kids. But that's being a throwback and I am fortunate to have a union that helps shield me from just being picked off by bosses who may not always have appreciated my attitude. Not everybody has that.

I've said for a while that fear is the basis of our whole economy--fear of not having enough, not looking impressive, falling behind, missing a big opportunity, not looking out for your kids, eating the wrong stuff, not saving enough money, etc. "You bought that new cell phone? Oh--you should have waited...they have a new one coming out in October. I already ordered mine."

Have you read Can't Buy My Love? I recommend it highly.

Or Affluenza, about how our consumptive habits are a disease.

Right on schedule, here comes the garbage. Not one to read trash like the Left Behind books, I completely missed the references to the antichrist in McCain's Moses ad. But you can be sure those references are not lost on the fundies who read that dreck.

I suppose it is probably no big deal, as they are the least likely to vote for Obama in any case. But this is another indication that McCain has decided to use the "change the subject" option, as referenced in the second link in my post #61. Only this time, instead of trying to scare independents away from Obama, it seems McCain may be trying to scare evangelicals into voting for him rather than staying home.

#68: Reading that article made something click. Something that Randi Rhodes has been talking about since the 2004 election is that the stadard Republican campaign tactic is to take the strongest thing about their opponent and make it seem like a liability. This whole thing about attacking Obama's popularity fit that mold perfectly. It's both retarded and makes sense all at the same time.

#68: ...Which brings to mind the article that I read today, in which McCain is accused of being the Antichrist. Snip:

Biblical scholars in Colorado Springs have uncovered startling evidence that Senator John McCain may be the Antichrist. Their conclusions, while highly controversial, may have a dramatic impact on the 2008 elections, since many Bible-believing Christians have already expressed doubts about McCain's fealty to Christianity.

The analysis was conducted by the respected True Bible Society, and it will be published next month in the End Times Journal.

#68--McCain has been maneuvering for the right wing christian vote since his nomination--trying to put George W.'s base back together. He failed with Hagee and Parsons who may have massive fundamentalist followings but their rhetoric sounds like lunacy to a wider, more skeptical american audience. Here he panders to the fears and fantasies of those fundamentalists. A lot of this kind of thing may go over the tops of the heads of ordinary viewers but connects with that target audience. They want their Armageddon and they want it now I suppose. WTF!?! What can you say to somebody who believes this nonsense? McCain has been telling people Obama will do anything to win--I suspect Obama would do a lot--but what is this other than a blatant attempt to draw people to his campaign by playing to their ignorance.

McCain has been maneuvering for the right wing christian vote since his nomination--trying to put George W.'s base back together.

But isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about? It's about attracting votes. So what? That's how it's supposed to work. I'm not specifically talking about you, Iriley, but how can anyone be in favor of democracy and then complain when it works the way it's supposed to?

#72--yeah I suppose you have a point here Lunar but even so why go as low as that where you're pandering to the most base fears? Maybe it's just me but the last thing these rapturists and armageddonites need is someone to give them credibility. It's just an opinion though and I am not a believer and I think these ideas have no objectivity and I am just one little ripple in an ocean of humanity so everything including this opinion needs to be considered for what it's worth. It's just that this left behind stuff seems so absurd.

#73: You just made me research the Left Behind series. Turns out that their video game tanked at a 4 million dollar net loss ($6m development costs vs only $2m in sales). Now they're giving the game away for free with only a shipping and handling fee. Very tempting...

On another note, I'm reminded of what direct democracy's biggest fan, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, said about people when a vote doesn't go their way. He believed that the minority didn't know what they really wanted and that they unconsciously wanted the result carried by the majority. Some crazy acrobatics there in order to pretend that democracy is the consent of the governed.

>70 Medellia:

Hoo boy, they want it soooooooo bad. All they need is that red cow, and they are ready to go.

So why do they have so much spare time to be mucking about in US politics?

>75 oregonobsessionz: Because Israel won't let them start their Armageddon?

I read all but the last half of the last book in the Left Behind series and I can certainly see the attraction in the blood of everyone who ever did me wrong, or hated Jesus, or is an unrepentant sinner, running wildly through the streets as a river a mile wide and five feet deep. Ohh, I can't wait to run beside Jesus on His white charger at super human speed to see who He is going to eviscerate next with His sword like tongue. Ohh, I can't wait for the revenge. Ohh, the river of blood. Ohh, the gore. Ohh, the revenge. Take revenge O Lord on MY enemies! Not thy will be done, but MY will be done! Come on God, you promised that if I rebuild your temple and sacrifice the sacred red heifer you will destroy the world, okay, I did my part, now You've got to do Yours!

These people are sick.

#74--I could make quite a list of things I would like to see from the next administration but I'm not sure that the majority of those who would vote the same as I could. I could as soon vote for Nader again--but I want this war ended and some sanity brought back to fiscal policy and something that amounts to an energy policy. There are several other things that Obama clearly seems better at enunciating than McCain. Delivering on them is another thing--it takes direction from the top--it takes congressional cooperation. The dems should increase their leads in congress particularly in the senate. Anyway to go back to the article in 68 that restarted a new round--there is kind of a subliminal message to a target audience--I'll leave it at that. Truthfully there was an anointed quality about Bush in 2000 and a big unknown factor as well. His political qualifications were his father and one term as governor of Texas. So that is a fair comparison at least to me. Obama is much more articulate than Bush but for some that might be apples and oranges.

Lunar>

You do make a great point--that you have no right to complain if you stay within the rules. I wish it were about that, the concept of maintaining principles that work for everyone, but it changes. Remember when people started going to Canada to buy prescriptions? No one seemed to clap loudly for the free market then.

That's the funny thing about our culture--on one hand you have 'rules', and on the other hand you have morals. What if Obama created a fear tactic ad showing old people... people with slow reaction times, early stages of Alzheimers, etc. Would that be acceptable? If voters were dumb enough to link McCain with others simply because of his age, would that be fair? (And if so, where do you draw the line?)

jesse_weidi
nmyer> I have not read it, but I'll look into it. Thanks for the tip.

Arctic Stranger>

I did read Affluenza, along with a handful of other books on the same topic: The Overworked American and The Overspent American, both by Juliet Schor, Luxury Fever by Robert Frank, and Take Back Your Time by John deGraff (the same guy who wrote Affluenza).

That's always been a favorite topic of mine--the fear of not having, of defining yourself by comparison, what others have, how much they have, etc. It's a pretty endless cycle. I think that's why so many people are obsessed with shows like Jerry Springer or American Idol--shows where viewers can sit back and laugh as they watch others fail. It's the grand illusion--perhaps Americas favorite--the idea that seeing others fail (particularly in large numbers) implies that YOU are NOT failing and that you should therefore feel good about yourself... (as if person A's success or failure has any connection whatsoever with yours.)

Which, just by coincidence, brings us full circle to the topic of this thread: the idea that person A is the obvious choice if I can simply convince you that person B is the wrong choice. So I ask you all, in a similar way, is the party that has run the White House for the last 8 years the right choice again this time?

The party that ran the White House for the last eight years and the Congress for the past fourteen less two is NEVER the right choice!

#79: That may be the way you feel and maybe you could even make the case that people who would be persuaded to vote for McCain over the "Obama's popular... TOO popular!" tripe are making irrational choices with their vote, but that is still democracy. Real people have subjective value systems that may not seem rational to others. That's ok when those choices are expressed through the free market and don't hurt any or many, but they are devastating when expressed through democracy where they can swing entire elections one way or the other.

Something that I've been mulling over in my head over the last couple of days upon realizing that the McCain campaign has found its voice...

Obama is the perfect candidate. Maybe I'm overstating that, but when I try to think of all the candidates that have come and gone, I can't shake the notion that Obama is the electable opposite of Dennis Kucinich. I may not agree with everything Obama seems to want to do, but from an electability standpoint and looking just at the nominees, the Democrats could not be in a better place.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The 21st Century campaign tactic adopted by the Republicans is not to nibble at obscure factoids about their opponent. It is to take the most prominent and positive thing about their opponent and make it seem like a bad thing. They did this with Kerry's service in Vietnam and his testimony on behalf of veterans who had shared their painful stories with him. They are doing it again with Obama's widely-noted appeal. This is a powerful campaign tactic and there's no point arguing over how ethical it is or what the Democrats should do to respond to it.

So what happens if Obama loses? If you have the perfect electable candidate, and he loses, what then? Me and my anarchist agenda wonder if people would prevaricate and make excuses about why he lost, like the aforementioned campaign tactics or any number of factors, or if they would finally realize the ruse that is democracy. Obviously, most people haven't been exposed to anarchist thought, so I think most of the people who had becomes disillusioned with the system would withdraw back into themselves and return to their day-to-day lives. Another segment, due to their blind faith in democracy, would make excuses about why they lost and that all they have to do next time is run an even more perfect campaign to beat the opposition. Of course, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

#80 I agree with you about "the ruse of democracy." We don't live in one anymore, but I think the US citizenry would need to be a good deal hungrier and good deal poorer before they felt moved to instigate a change.

It took centuries for Rome to "fall."

Lunar>

Keep in mind that Obama hasn't even made a move yet; McCain and his team seem like they're trying to get something out of him, a move, a mistake maybe. They're trying to get him to 'react' if you will. Hillary tried it too, the whole 3 AM thing, but it was the media that reacted--Obama stayed on course.

That's what I think is different with Obama: he never seems to get distracted away from what he's trying to do. Again, I think the bread and butter of this campaign will come after Labor Day, and it's going to be about real issues (ie, the economy, leaving Iraq, and health care) rather than abstract fluff like "Can he lead?" and "Boy, is he POPULAR!"

I think it's clear that the reason McCain hasn't talked about the big issues is because he doesn't really have positions on them that would make voters say, "Oh yes--he's got my vote." This also explains why he's only shooting down Obama--it distracts people away from his box of sound bites that really doesn't have anything behind it.

That will change. Once we get closer to election day McCain's little five second quips like, "I want to get this economy rolling again" are going to catch up with him.

Much of what McCain is doing is because he's running behind not only in the polls but in funding his campaign. He is the underdog here. One big battle left is over the undecideds and McCain is going to have to clearly win over those voters. The tone of some of his campaign ads seems intent on shoring up what should be his conservative--particularly the religious conservative base which views his nomination with an apathetic eye. It seems to me that to really get this crowd behind him he is going to have to choose a VP to their liking--Romney (as a mormon former pro-choicer), Jindal, the HP lady, Ridge will leave them less than enthusiastic. In other respects despite whether they like each other or not Romney would make him more competitive in Michigan, Ohio--two states up for grabs that he's badly going to need and if Mitt was to open up his wallet--even better. A VP choice whom he might pick because he feels comfortable with him or her is likely to sink his campaign. I think the longer Barack puts off naming a VP the longer McCain squirms over his own VP dilemna.

McCain may be the presumptive nominee, but he isn't the nominee yet. I think Obama really wants to run against McCain and doesn't want to make him look too weak just yet. The money running the Republic party will not hesitate to nominate someone else if they think McCain will lose in the fall.