<p>“Don’t make this election about ideals and labels. Honestly it’s either a continuation of the Bush economic/foreign policies (McCain) or a solution to the problems created in these past 8 years (Obama).”</p>
<p>Ok, this is way too hypocritical not to comment on. Here you are saying not to make the election about ideals and labels, yet your candidate has centered his whole campaign around “change.” Obama is a true demagogue of change who has no real experience in dealing with anything and is only a mere freshman senator. As far as labels go, Obama is the one labeling McCain as “Bush’s third term,” which is completely ridiculous considering McCain has opposed the President on pretty much everything except for the Iraq War. I can say this as someone who hates McCain but would rather have the lesser of two evils.</p>
<p>“And why do people so confidently degrade Obama just because of people he is associated with? First of all, it’s an ad hominem fallacy. The election should be about the issues, the direction America is headed in. We are basically hiring a President – and since when do employers care more about the associations/race of the person over his/her abilities and solutions? Just give me someone who can get the job done properly, and I won’t care if he/she is Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, black, white, asian, whatever.
Secondly, it’s naive to assume that people merely connected to Obama have control over his character.”</p>
<p>I think I love you.</p>
<p>I personally don’t understand why, in recent elections, supporting one candidate means you have to hate the other’s guts. Elections in this country are no longer about the issues. They’ve become personality contests.</p>
<p>Honestly, think about some of the “issues” that have been raised. Obama is continually accused of being an elitist… by the Wellesley-educated Hillary Clinton. Right. I think anyone running for president has to be elitist to some degree – you have to think you’re better than everyone else if you want to govern everyone else, you know what I mean?</p>
<p>And what’s this obsession with electing people who you’d like to “have a beer with” or who would “fit in at an Applebee’s salad bar”? We’re not electing our best friend. We’re electing someone who should be capable of running this country. Beer and Applebee’s should have nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>What’s ridiculous is that you buy into his spin from the late 90s that he’s such a maverick. The fact is he has stood up to his partyfrom time to time, but the really troubling thing about McCain is he’s been so wobbly and told so many different people exactly what they want to hear, contradicting himself from one day to the next, that he’s become – if he wasn’t already – a liar of high magnitude. At the very least, he’s a horrible panderer. Interesting that you find that the lesser of two evils.</p>
<p>I’m sure that Obama will not be selecting conservative judges, but McCain will. Obama is not a conservative, but his handlers are packaging him as a moderate/conservative. </p>
<p>Obama is a liberal, who wants a liberal court. He has surrounded himself will liberals and radicals as advisors for the last 20 years.</p>
<p>this election is a difference in morals and ideals. I mean obama and mccain are very diff candidates. I mean as a conservative i just can’t vote for obama because fundamently he believe very much differently than me. I mean i feel like peple are trying not to make it an moral/ ideal fight but it is.
I mean i don’t know if obama would be good or not. I have no clue, but just on the fundamentals i don’t agree with him.</p>
<p>The entire Republican strategy against Obama can be summed up by the following statement: “Psst, this black guy knows another black guy who once goddamned America. Pass it on.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You want to talk morals? How about comparing the marriages of Obama and McCain? Barack and Michelle are the ideal modern-day couple, sharing everything from earning power to public displays of affection. In contrast, John McCain left his former beauty queen wife because of a disfiguring car accident in order to marry a younger beauty queen and heiress. </p>
<p>An extremely potent strategy that Obama’s camp is taking very seriously. Politics is about winning, it’s not about the strength of the argument.</p>
<p>When Bill Clinton was still president, George Bush campaigned on a platform of “restoring dignity to the White House.” Character had become an issue because of Clinton’s womanizing. Clinton was of course impeached for telling lies and depending on legalisms in hiding or defending his activities, even though many considered that his actions while reprehensible were far short of the standard required for presidential impeachment.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it make sense for the Republican Party at least to apply some of the same impeachment-related character standards to the life of McCain? Many Republican-aligned pundits have already maligned Obama’s character because of his association with a man of suspect ideas. But there are other actions that speak much more directly to a man’s character, wouldn’t this be agreed?</p>
<p>Ross Perot, the billionaire who paid for McCain’s first wife’s medical bills and knew both McCain and his wife well, on McCain:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other quotes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.</p>
<p>Putting aside for a second the question of the fact that McCain sought out Hagee’s support and endorsement and how this matches up against Obama’s long-term association with Wright, I’d say given the Republicans’ track record of being scandalized by certain character issues and “guilt by association,” they need to examine these facts from McCain’s life.</p>
<p>What spurred my interest in this story was also the fact that I had drinks with a woman whose father was in McCain’s flight class. When I asked her if he liked him and would vote for him, she demurred and said that he would support Obama. She wouldn’t say whether her father liked McCain.</p>
<p>Finally, on the topic of deceit, raised by one of these quotes, look at this video – especially the parts where he talks about how safe Iraq is. He talks like a practiced liar, IMO. If you don’t believe in his being a liar, you have to at least admit that he’s problematically forgetful; that would be an extremely nice (read: delusional) interpretation. Again, at the least, he’s a horrible panderer:</p>
<p>I find this repeated radical-liberal comparison to be offensive, quite frankly. The overreaction, hyperbole, and seeming lack of thought put into the counter-arguments (or whatever you might call them at this point) are getting annoying.</p>
<p>Then you should have nominated a better candidate! One who’s ideals were more centrist and less left leaning. Instead of a rookie Senator who’s still wet behind the ears and could use a lot more seasoning politically speaking!</p>
<p>Well, Terp, the Repubs nominated AND elected a guy from Illinois in 1860 with far less experience than Barack. You naysayers need to find a new refrain, less you will be accused (oh, no!) of whining!!!</p>
<p>Moreover, I am most interested in what conservatives have to say who support Mr. Obama. I met a few at a 15,000 person rally a few months ago, all of whom opined that A) it was time again for an adult in the WH; B) it was time again for someone of thoughtful intellect; and C) it was time for a BIG change. . . That seems to be the primary motivator for people of various backgrounds, including conservatives, to support Obama!</p>
<p>“Then you should have nominated a better candidate!”</p>
<p>Why do I get the feeling that, had Clinton been nominated, we’d be having an argument that differed on the talking points but was basically the same?</p>
<p>What America needs now is someone who is smart and has judgement, to make up for the lack of that in the past 8 years. I would have preferred Jeb Bush over George Bush – even at the time but especially now – with his relative smarts and less experienced resume than his older, less accomplished brother.</p>
<p>Let me guess: you voted for W in the last two elections and for you it was okay to have a constantly bailed out flunky with a big name who was a screw up until the age of 40 and who never had to reach for his accomplishments vs. having a guy who came from an average family, made Harvard law review and got himself elected Senator.</p>
<p>Putting these differing biographies aside, Obama is just head and shoulders above either Bush or McCain when it comes to intelligence and ability to show judgement.</p>