You're easily duped. This garbage is so motherhood and apple pie. If it were that easy, it would already have been done that way. Hussein Ubama has no idea what he's talking about.
What is really interesting is that people are so reluctant and cynical about trying a new approach. You would think that after years of the same ****, people might be ready for the possibility of a new way of dealing with government.
I think it's a great sign that the person on the board who's consistently been wrong about everything relating to this election thinks that Obama has no idea what he's talking about.
False choice. Better to have some understanding of candidates' policy differences than none at all. It certainly is easier to distinguish the two sides of a debate when they are more clearly opposed to each other. On the other hand it is still important to determine the best available option when those options differ in only minor ways. For instance, a good debate on the merits of mandated health care coverage vs. voluntary would help voters choose between the current Democratic candidates. I think you're probably right. However, I still think it's dangerous for a campaign to explicitly devalue reasoned debate in favor of meaningless rhetoric. You have a good point about the inability of the electorate to gain a deep understanding of the issues, but that in itself is a CHALLENGE for candidates to overcome, not ignore altogether. Your position seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that voters tend to be largely ignorant of the finer points of policy advocacy, so we should simply play to their ignorance and focus on something they can't possibly misunderstand (because it's meaningless).
You can try and try - but you're not going to get anywhere, it seems. People who can't think outside of the box and assume "the way it's been is the way it has to be" simply won't understand. The funny thing is that it's the challenging of conventional wisdom that makes people uniquely successful instead of ordinary.
I'm suggesting that beyond what we've already gotten, you're going to get ZERO more understanding of their differences from a debate. Watch the debate next Thursday and - assuming the questions are substantive - tell me if you learn anything more about either candidate's positions. But we already know the basics - they've mentioned those plenty of times. Hillary's argument is that universal health care only works if everyone participates; Obama suggests that mandates that can't be enforced are worthless. Nitpicking into the details will be nonsense - both candidates will spin things to their own views and you'll just be left with deciding who's spin you believe. Professional health care economists differ on the issue after years of analysis - how realistic do you think it is for you to get a good read on the issue in a debate where each candidate will have a few minutes to convince you? Except he's never devalued reasoned debate. He's been more than happy to engage in it when the time calls for it. He's never said or implied that discussing issues is bad, and has had plenty of issue-oriented speeches. But on the campaign trail, why not focus on a more effective strategy if it's available? The "substance" strategy is no different - it's espousing platitudes (often false) in order to convince voters to join you. For what it's worth, I don't think it has anything to do with ignorance of voters. I don't think voters should be expected to understand technical details of a subject that isn't there expertise, and I think there is little to no value in trying to force that on them. They are (understandably) going to go with what sounds best, regardless of what IS best. If I'm building a product for a business, I wouldn't expect the engineers to fully understand the marketing strategy, and I wouldn't expect the marketers to fully understand the product engineering. Why would I expect voters to understand the technical details of a health care plan - especially when health care experts barely grasp it? To be clear - there are areas where substance makes sense. Voters understand tax rates and tax credits and the like. They understand # of teachers in a classroom and how it affects their kids' educations. They understand the idea of government involved in health care and the like. The problem is that there is virtually no difference between the candidates on these issues. Why spend a lot of time talking about something that doesn't give voters any sense of the difference between the two candidates?
"'Debate" TV Ad <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-889LvbawSM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-889LvbawSM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
FB- thanks for the clarification, and I'm sorry I didn't respond to you earlier. I guess I just don't see how Obama could possibly change this aspect of American politics. Congress drafts bills and presents them to the President, who can either sign them or veto them (basically). S/he doesn't get to decide what riders, if any, are placed on them. This all sounds nice but it's a pipe dream. The reason the "aspects that everyone can agree on" are "lumped in with other stuff" is because members of Congress are willing to hold out on supporting popular legislation in order to get their pet project passed with it. So what can a President really do in this situation? Veto any bill that has an undesirable line item? That's what CAUSES deadlock! The only thing s/he can do is compromise on certain issues, and hold ground on others. Obama isn't going to change that, nor would I really want him to.
True it is congress that does this, but as a president he can request congress to act in a certain way, to bring forward certain legislation just as Bush as done time and time again. He's also the leader of the party that would hold the majority of congress. That is one of the reasons why I say it isn't going to be 100% smooth transition nice and easy. It isn't just going to happen, but the change can start.
How can a president be a uniter when he is a liberal and wants to enact liberal policies? Every now and then, you meet a rare person who believes strongly in certain things- and yet also respects the beliefs of others. For most people, this doesn't compute. For most people, to truly believe in something, you believe that it is universally truthful- and others should believe the same. The best parallel I can imagine is when you run into a special type of Christian, (or practitioner of any faith) and that person has a deep abiding faith within them... and yet at the same time respects your beliefs and doesn't hold you as an opponent because you look at things differently. This person might think that you're wrong, but give you your space to have your own journey instead of making you see things his way. Or maybe he'll just live his life as best he can and lead by example. Or, perhaps he doesn't think that you are wrong for believing differently- perhaps his view of the world is big enough to fit your definitions in there. When you run into someone like this, it's disarming. When you debate an issue with someone like this, it's hard to keep your defenses up when he doesn't treat you like an opponent. If you disagree on something, you want to be able to have a good solid debate or argument, stay on your side, and prove that you are right and he is wrong. But the carpet is pulled out from under you when he refuses to be your enemy. He acknowledges your views. He respects where you're coming from. You find yourself infected by his openness. The best equivalent I can think of on this BBS is MadMax. He is totally unflinching in his faith, has very clear stances in the D&D on what he thinks is right and wrong- but doesn't find it necessary to beat other people over the head for not thinking the same. He doesn't lower himself (as far as I've seen) to name calling and mud slinging and speaking in anger or hatred. Now there are issues where I STRONGLY disagree with MadMax. But if I were in a position to enact policy, and had to work with someone "across the aisle"- you bet your ass I'll pick him first. No question. And it's not because I'm going to be able to force him to see things my way, because I won't. It's because we will at least have civil, reasoned discussions on the issue. I can know that going in there I'm going to be respected. If we can't agree, at least we can keep a civil, friendly, business relationship, conducive to better work together in the future. And who knows? Maybe we'll find middle ground that we do agree on, or something we're willing to compromise on. At least we'll have a chance to discover that. Now imagine having to work on legislation from someone else in this BBS "across the aisle" from you. Someone who disrespects you from the outset. Someone who might already hate you because of the beliefs you've stated. Or perhaps someone who doesn't even know you, but will call you a names and insult you just because you hold liberal or conservative ideals. Someone who presumes to know what you're all about because he has labeled you already. Imagine coming into the room and sitting across the table from this person, and you actually have to work with this person on something that you both feel strongly about. This is present day politics. This is politics as usual. I believe that Barack is an example of the former type of man. I believe that he will make a good or even excellent president because of this quality. Why do I believe that? A lot of it is subjective character judgement based on following him closely, his words and his actions. I can understand why others find that unconvincing. I can also see why others think this is a bad way to choose a president, but I am voting on platform- and on style of governance. 8 years ago I used to think that policy is all that mattered. After 8 years of Bush I've learned differently. Style of leadership means everything. Unfortunately, that cannot be objectively measured. I believe he is who he says he is. I believe that he doesn't look at people with different beliefs as fundamentally different. I think his speeches of "one nation" are inspirational because he believes what he is saying. But just to give a few examples: he isn't reluctant to give credit to republicans just because they are republicans. He credits Romney for his health plan and Arnold for his work on global warming. He credited Reagan on his leadership and called the republican party of the 80's and 90's the "party of ideas." To drive home the point, let's take that last quote. Bill Clinton took that quote and ran with it, pandering to the democratic base by saying "OMG this guy says that republicans have the good ideas!!" In other words, he's a traitor to 'our cause'. This is the old way: Partisanship is okay- as long as your guy wins. I am your friend, because I am their enemy. Obama is the new way.
Hussein Ubama is a uniter? Well, looks like he has united blacks to vote for him, but he has alienated Latinos and Asians. That doesn't sound like much of a uniter to me.
A couple of weeks ago, you were saying that about white people. So much for that. Good to see you keep shifting messages and each previous one gets proven wrong.
On Super Tuesday in CA, no. On Super Tuesday in AZ/NM, sort-of (about 60/40 Hillary). In the most recent primaries, a majority did, yes. Not the answer you were looking for, eh?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080213.IBBITOR13/TPStory/TPInternational/America/ What remains unknown is whether the size and scope of Mr. Obama's recent victories will erode her support among middle- and working-class voters and Latinos. Exit polls last night suggest Ms. Clinton is facing exactly that problem. In previous states, the vote was split between African Americans and affluent liberals, who backed Mr. Obama, and Latino and middle- and working-class white voters, especially white women, who backed Ms. Clinton. But in Virginia and Maryland last night, exit polls showed that Ms. Clinton's base is melting away, at least in the Chesapeake. The two candidates split the white vote evenly, with Ms. Clinton outpolling Mr. Obama among white women by only nine points, less than half her previously typical lead, according to The Associated Press. Mr. Obama led among white men. And a Fox News exit poll put seniors, another core Clinton constituency, into Mr. Obama's column, by 53 per cent to 47 per cent. The Fox News poll also had Mr. Obama winning the Latino vote, 55 to 45 per cent. And among African Americans, Mr. Obama took nine votes out of 10.
I'm glad to hear that, Major. If he does win the nomination, he's going to need those votes in the general. Impeach Bush.
The potomac states aren't exactly a hotbed of latinos, Major. That's like saying Huckabee swept the white democrat vote in inner city Baltimore. 5 out of the 10 white people there voted for him. We'll see how Hussein Ubama does with a sizable latino state - Texas
