It also doesn't mean you would disassociate yourself with them because whatever stupid things they may say from time to time doesn't necessarily reflect all of who they are.
I haven't heard anything about a Chelsea 9/11 story and your link didn't have anything at it so I'm not sure about that story or what sort of traction its having. In regard to the Hillary Bosnia whopper story I would put that in the same category as the embellishments of Al Gore or Reagan's occasional forays into fiction. While certainly embarrassing not disqualifications for President and one that Clinton did admit too. At the same time I would point out that Obama himself has shaded and parsed the truth such as on his comments regarding Wright's controversial statements and his appropriation of Duval's speech. While Obama far from being a new candidate is much more similar to Clinton than many Obama supporters might acknowledge. I would say though that in my mind that doesn't disqualify him either. My own view I've stated all along. I believe Clinton is the more experienced candidate and have a better sense of what her Admin might be like vs. an Obama campaign. I'm not a fan of her personally but that isn't a primary motivation. I have nothign personal against Obama and if he wins the nomination I will support him. Also I will take you at your word that you're not trying to attack Clinton in this thread but the description you layout at the beginning is clearly an attack and sounds to me much more along the lines of a push poll which boils down to "Hillary is a liar. Why are you supporting a liar?" Whether this was your intention or not that is how it reads.
Character is important but given what the country is facing so are issues. There are few people running for president that I can say I would really like their character. The craziness of running a national campaign along with having to go out raise that much money to me would require a certain amount of obsessive compulsiveness, narcism and self-righteousness that I don't find appealing. Other than I want to know what they are going to do once they get into office. I would gladly vote for someone who I couldn't stand to be in the same room with if I had a sense they were going to work on the issues I agree with than the nicest guy in the world who wouldn't. The nicest guy in the world might be pleasent to be around but what good does that do to me if the issues I value don't get acted on.
You aren't running for President, and if you were, I doubt that you would make that person a part of your campaign.
I can certainly see Reagan (liberating concentration camps), but please provide examples for Gore. Do you mean the Internet? http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/ Love Canal? Love Story? Give me one example from Gore that comes close.
Character and likeability are two very, very different things. Character, to me, is trustworthiness, honesty, integrity, willingness to see other opinions, etc. It has nothing to do with how nice someone is. For me, that influences so much more of a successful or unsuccessful Presidency than the issues, which vacillate every 4 years anyway. My biggest problems with Bush were not his political views - it was that he was dogmatic about his views and unwilling to recognize opposing viewpoints or changes in circumstance - those are character, not policy issues to me, and that's what led us into Iraq and caused a "war on science", for example. Ultimately, we're a centrist nation and will remain so. Each time one party tries to implement too many of their policies, the country will shift back the other way. I think that's why we ultimately see the candidates in different ways. Nothing wrong with either view - just interesting to see why different people view candidates who are fairly similar on the issues in such different terms. On a side note, the Chelsea/9-11 story link got all messed up. Here it was: http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/03/26/hillarys-other-fabrication/
Howabout Gore talking about how terrible smoking was and the damage it did to his family while he was taking campaign money from tobbacco and had worked on legislation to help out tobacco growers. Ok maybe that isn't a lie but doesn't speak very well to Gore's character.
Except leading us into Iraq and a war on science are all policy issues. What if GW Bush was stubborn and insisted we not go into Iraq inspite of what his advisors were telling him? The character issues you have a problem with seem to be how they are expressed on the issues than so much just the character. There have been many stubborn politicians who refused to listen to opposing viewpoints, Truman and Churchill come to mind, but would you have opposed them because they were stubborn?
Lots of things wrong here: Many of George Bush's advisors did tell him not to go to Iraq. In fact basically half of them - including his father. Further you are conflating resolve with stubborness. They are related but not the same. Finally I don't believe either Truman or Churchill was the same kind of post-modern anti-elitist/anti-intellectual the way our President seems to be.
No question that Truman and Churchill (especially) were giants compared to this goofus in the Oval Office. Truman integrated the military (a bold move and an intellectual one, imo) and Churchill, if he was anything, was not anti-elitist/anti-intellectual. Trim Bush.
One man's stubborness is another resolve. Many of Truman and Churchill's critics called them stubborn. We only admire them now because history proved them right on the issues.
What issues were that? That the US surrender to the Japanese or the Soviets or the UK allow itself to be subjugated by Nazi germany ? I know I have the benefit of hindsight but neither of those decisions appears to be even close to difficult at the time. Also, as I said before, there is nothing to suggest that either of the two gentlemen had the same level of distinct disinterest in policy specifics that our current leader has, apparently because of his direct line to God.
This helps me understand your stance better. As Major explained earlier, I think that character and likability are different things- although there are character qualities that can contribute to perceived likeability. Character has a direct effect on leadership style. Before Bush, policy was the only thing important to me. After the past 7 years, I see how important it is. From your post, I'm not clear- but do you understand that the administration got *plenty* of advice to not invade Iraq, to invade with more troops, to try more diplomacy... on and on. Not just complaints from democrats- dissenting voices from Colin Powell, and from generals and admirals. They were ignored and/or or retired. Arrogance is not a policy decision. Giving your opponents the middle finger at every turn is not policy. Destruction of incriminating documents and secrecy are not policy. Stonewalling any opposition and oversight is not policy. And if it is "policy", it is born of the personal qualities of overwhelming hubris. You cannot take every rubber-meets-the-road action as policy and ignore everything else. The motivations for these actions come from somewhere. They shine a light on who these people are. These aren't robots. They are people. If the only thing that mattered was policy, why have a campaign? You can just put up statements of policy. Why even see the person? Why hear them speak? Why have debates? You can just compare resumes and choose. This viewpoint is understandable, but it removes the human element from government, which unrealistic. Impossible, really. These are human beings. They have characteristics, likes, and dislikes; they interact with each other. It isn't a group of robots that spit out policy. There are qualities of leadership that are difficult to describe but impossible to miss when you see them. There are leaders who sow division, leaders who create unity, leaders who inspire loyalty and leaders who ignite hatred. There are superior leaders and inferior leaders, and they aren't made such because of their stances on policy.
That criticism comes from the fact that the Gore family continued to grow tobacco and take subsidies after his sister's death from lung cancer and Gore, as a politician from Tennessee, accepted donations from tobacco companies as a Rep and Senator. A few years later, they quit. When he first spoke out on it, he was not taking campaign money from tobacco. He did sponsor anti-tobacco legislation, was a major player in the big settlement, and has promoted all kinds of research into the effects of smoking. Gore played a big role in weaning the Dem Party of tobacco money and Big Tobacco was squarely against him in 2000... That he changed his mind and removed the influence of Tobacco from the Dem Party, even if it was later then some of us would have liked, does speak to his character. And... You explicitly said Gore speaks lies that are the equivalent of Hillary's duck and cover from sniper fire and Reagan's contention that he personally liberated concentration camps (from Hollywood). What you gave me was not even close.
You have created an artificial distinction between the issues a politician works for and cares for and character. They are related and you can tell a lot about their real character from their political actions and the issues they care about You don't think Obama and McCain are interested in the issues? You don't think that is why they run? If not issues, then what? Blind ambition? How is that great character? The lives of millions of Iraqis and Americans will be different depending on their approach to the issues of the day and at least Obama and McCain do agree on this.
