Regardless of which Presidential candidate you favor...

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Actually, he's pretty much the same guy, which is why I'm not a huge fan. He's a conservative in the same way Joe Lieberman is a liberal- in some area a lot, in others not so much.

 

 

For me, McCain is one of those people that I found far more appealing four years ago then now, as I've found out more about him. Again, for me, I feel he's become less appealing as his campaign has worn on, and I've found out about the way he treats people, the way he's crashed planes, the application of "Rove-ian" tactics (hiring the very same people who have lambasted him previously), ugly campaign tactics (robo-calls), etc. He doesn't strike me now as a "maverick" but more of a mean-spirited opportunist. Maybe you knew more about him than I did before, so you realized that he was pretty much the same guy.

 

And I know some people, including many of my friends, have gotten very excited about Obama. I have not. I don't dislike him, either, but I am wary of his lack of experience overall, so it's very difficult for me to get too excited about him.

 

I'm more enthusiastic about the Bush Administration finally coming to an end.

[BlueStrat]

 

I don't deny that I've been distressed by some of the exaggerations, inaccuracies, and a couple of straight out false statements that have come from the Obama campaign and their ads. But a good look at, say, the non-partisan truth-in-politics organization FactCheck.org's coverage of the campaign quickly reveals that most of the worst has come from the McCain camp. www.FactCheck.org

 

 

 

Could be. Then again, he's got a sizeable media disadvantage to overcome ( http://journalism.org/node/13307 )

as well as being dwarfed by Obama's 600 million dollars in spending.

[BlueStrat]

 

For me, McCain is one of those people that I found far more appealing four years ago then now, as I've found out more about him. Again, for me, I feel he's become less appealing as his campaign has worn on, and I've found out about the way he treats people, the way he's crashed planes, the application of "Rove-ian" tactics (hiring the very same people who have lambasted him previously), ugly campaign tactics (robo-calls), etc. He doesn't strike me now as a "maverick" but more of a mean-spirited opportunist. Maybe you knew more about him than I did before, so you realized that he was pretty much the same guy. And I know some people, including many of my friends, have gotten very excited about Obama . I have not. I don't dislike him, either, but I am wary of his lack of experience overall, so it's very difficult for me to get too excited about him. I'm more enthusiastic about the Bush Administration finally coming to an end.

 

 

I've never though McCain has the temperament to be president. He's vain, a bit arrogant, impatient and very short tempered.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Could be. Then again, he's got a sizeable media disadvantage to overcome ( http://journalism.org/node/13307 ) as well as being dwarfed by Obama's 600 million dollars in spending.

 

 

It's so difficult to accurately interpret statistics, though. Is this simply the media reporting on McCain running an increasingly negative campaign? Or is it a genuine media disadvantage? And if so, why does the media negativity increase in the last month or so?

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I've never though McCain has the temperament to be president. He's vain, a bit arrogant, impatient and very short tempered.

 

 

Yes, I think you're right. I had been wary of the short-tempered and impatient part, but I feel like as I've seen more of his campaign, I've learned about his vanity and, if I could add, mean-spiritedness and opportunistic aspects of his personality, which have really turned me off.

[Lee Flier]

 

Could be. Then again, he's got a sizeable media disadvantage to overcome ( http://journalism.org/node/13307 )

 

 

But according to this article you posted, the media was really following the polls, not the other way.

 

 

* Coverage of Obama began in the negative after the conventions, but the tone switched with the changing direction of the polls. The most positive stories about him were those that were most political

[UstadKhanAli]

Yes, this is exactly what I am getting at...is this the media reporting on what is going on (McCain's increasingly nasty campaign, his reactions to the economic downfall, etc.)? Does this necessarily show media bias, or are they simply reporting?

[blue2blue]

 

Could be. Then again, he's got a sizeable media disadvantage to overcome ( http://journalism.org/node/13307 ) as well as being dwarfed by Obama's 600 million dollars in spending.

 

 

It doesn't seem to have been doing a very good job. In-depth (attitudinal) polling seems to suggest that the overwhelming majority of US voters feel McCain has gone "too far" and been "unfair" and that his criticisms are not trustworthy. His increasingly negative tone -- and the increasingly tenuous connection to any sort of facts in his frequently repeated accusations -- have simply driven independents and undecideds farther away.

 

With regard to the money, he certainly could have used modern fundraising techniques to try to deliver the kind of mostly small contributors that Obama was so good at rallying. Clinton adopted some of Obama's modern techniques and was able to boost some of her fundraising late in the game.

 

But a real issue for McCain was that his campaign was simply terrible at managing the money they had. Absolutely incompetent. The campaign almost went bankrupt in 2007 from mismanagement.

 

For instance, the NY Times pointed out:

 

 

Senator Barack Obama

[MichaelSaulnier]

I'm always amazed at the low turnouts at the polls.

 

I have to assume apathy is the root cause, which is sad... a sense of "my vote doesn't really matter, so why bother." Often accompanied with "I don't like either candidate or party or whatever."

 

People paid with their lives for our right to vote... and it's an insult to them if you can, but don't.

 

On a pragmatic level, low voter turnouts GREATLY improves the ability of the motivated, and often fringe, people on either side to determine the outcome. The majority of people are moderate in their beliefs, and if polititicans could count on the moderate majority to vote, they would cater far less to the extremists in their parties.

 

Vote.

 

It's the right thing to do.

 

M

[Lee Flier]

Senator Barack Obama

[Lee Flier]

 

I'm always amazed at the low turnouts at the polls. I have to assume apathy is the root cause, which is sad... a sense of "my vote doesn't really matter, so why bother." Often accompanied with "I don't like either candidate or party or whatever." People paid with their lives for our right to vote... and it's an insult to them if you can, but don't. On a pragmatic level, low voter turnouts GREATLY improves the ability of the motivated, and often fringe, people on either side to determine the outcome. The majority of people are moderate in their beliefs, and if polititicans could count on the moderate majority to vote, they would cater far less to the extremists in their parties.

 

 

Excellent, excellent points. Quite a few times I've had to hold my nose to vote, or vote for a third party... but I still did it. And you're right, we can't let extremists in either party run the show.

[amplayer]

 

Excellent, excellent points. Quite a few times I've had to hold my nose to vote, or vote for a third party... but I still did it. And you're right, we can't let extremists in either party run the show.

 

 

McCain is clearly in the middle. He is the only one with a history of working across party lines. He sponsored or co-sponsored several bills with Democrats. People who want a centrist should be flocking to McCain in droves.

 

Obama, on the other hand, is an extreme liberal. I have never put signs in my yard or volunteered for the Republican party until this election. It is the fact that the Democrats nominated an extremist (in the person of Mr. Obama) that made me get involved even though I hold my nose when I vote for and even campaign for McCain. Obama makes Hillary look like a centrist!

Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate!

[Lee Flier]

And I know some people, including many of my friends, have gotten very excited about Obama . I have not. I don't dislike him, either, but I am wary of his lack of experience overall, so it's very difficult for me to get too excited about him.

 

The "experience" part doesn't bother me one bit. First of all I think it's overstated. He actually does have quite a lot of experience at things that matter, and even just his track record in the two years he's been in the U.S. Senate is pretty startling. His opponents like to say he's spent the entire two years campaigning for President and hasn't done anything, and that's BS. They also like to say that there's no evidence of him reaching across the aisle and that's BS also. Obama has sponsored something like 150 pieces of legislature in two years, and co-sponsored about 600! Many in cahoots with Republicans. One of the first things he did when elected was reach across the aisle and draft a nuclear non proliferation bill with Richard Lugar, a Republican.

 

He also authored a bill that would determine U.S. action and policy in the Congo. It also was passed into law last year with bipartisan support.

 

If you read much of this legislation you can get a sense of the breadth and depth of understand Obama really has about these issues, much of which really transcends partisan rhetoric. Simply put, he's a sensible guy.

 

But maybe more importantly, I agree with blue2blue's earlier point that experience and even positions on issues matter less to me than other things: temperament, judgement, vision, intellect, character. Obama scores high marks with me on all these things. He has shown throughout the campaign as well as earlier in life that he responds gracefully to attacks, is calm under pressure, has selected good people to advise him, listens carefully and objectively to points of view that may differ from his own. I'm quite confident that he won't surround himself with yes-men, but he'll also jettison anybody who's a toxic influence. All of these things are great qualities in a President.

 

I also think he'd go a long way toward restoring America's standing in the world. We could go forward with a lot more help from our friends, and I think that aspect of things has been gravely overlooked in the last 8 years and is part of what's driven the economy into the crapper: we've been acting on our own, with very little willing cooperation from the rest of the world in dealing with global problems. That isn't good.

 

So, while I'm sure Obama would do things I didn't agree with, and I'm sure he'd disappoint me at times when he had to make compromises (as anybody in that position does), I don't have any reservations at all in voting for him.

[Lee Flier]

 

McCain is clearly in the middle. He is the only one with a history of working across party lines. He sponsored or co-sponsored several bills with Democrats. People who want a centrist should be flocking to McCain in droves. Obama, on the other hand, is an extreme liberal.

 

 

You are very misinformed... please see my last post, in which coincidentally (since we seem to have been posting at the same time) I mentioned just two of many bills Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored with Republicans.

 

Obama has never showed himself to be anything but a mainstream, pragmatic Democrat. Not an extreme liberal by any stretch of the imagination. His opponents have done their darnedest to paint him that way, because it's all they've got. But a quick review of the facts will show that's nowhere near true.

[Rabid]

Being totally honest here...

 

When I look at the issues two things stand out. McCain's stance on spending bills and Palin's drive to clean up government.

 

Looking to indirect issues, electing a black president may be a great next step in race relations. A lot of white people have to vote Obama for him to win, and if that happens it may help to alleviate negative feelings so many black people have towards whites.

 

I'm sure a lot of white people in WV will vote McCain but I doubt that the percentage comes close to the 99 percent of black people that will vote Obama.

 

Either way, I will gladly take any two of the four presidential/vice-presidential candidates over what we have now. What ever they come up with economically has to be better than the Clinton/Bush push over the last 16 years to drive the economy by spending into debt and abandon savings until their is no credit left to spend.

 

Obama/Palin in 2008. :phil:

[antematter]

I see the campaign trail as a tightrope with lots of smoke and mirrors. I bet some, maybe a lot of the policies the candidates bring to the election are not really the ones they would like to propose. They have to come up with a strategy to win the election. So Barack has the tax cuts for 95% of the people while Maverick McCain is for Joe the plumber. It's a game to secure electoral votes. If Obama or McCain came out with a Fair tax plan, people would call them radical and they'd join Nader on the 'other' ticket. Campaign promises and 'my plan is better than your plan' is just about getting votes.

 

What I base my vote on is 'who will be the better leader'? When they finally get into office, and no longer need to campaign, what are they going to do? What kind of decision makers will they be? Can I get a feel for what type of diplomat they will be? I want intelligence, integrity, and honesty. I need a leader with excellent leadership qualities along with the ability to communicate, not only with Americans, but people and leaders around the world. As crises occur, who is better to come up with viable solutions?

 

I don't claim allegiance to any party, race or religion. It's the person I vote for.

 

 

On a side note, it's clear how important a person's speaking ability is in today's politics. It started with radio, then TV, and now the internets. What's interesting is that Thomas Jefferson (jack of all trades, possibly smartest president ever), stopped giving the State of the Union addresses in person, choosing to send it to congress in writing, because he was self-conscious of his lisp. Imagine that? Sometimes I think technology is our own worst enemy when it comes to the evolution of our society.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

temperament, judgement, vision, intellect, character . Obama scores high marks with me on all these things. He has shown throughout the campaign as well as earlier in life that he responds gracefully to attacks, is calm under pressure, has selected good people to advise him, listens carefully and objectively to points of view that may differ from his own. I'm quite confident that he won't surround himself with yes-men, but he'll also jettison anybody who's a toxic influence. All of these things are great qualities in a President. I also think he'd go a long way toward restoring America's standing in the world.

 

 

It's for these very reasons that I've already voted for Obama, Lee.

 

I hope you're right about the experience thing, as that is one aspect that concerns me.

 

And Amplayer, I just don't see him as an extremist at all. I just don't see this at all, and I'm rather wary of extremists.

[Lee Flier]

 

Looking to indirect issues, electing a black president may be a great next step in race relations. A lot of white people have to vote Obama for him to win, and if that happens it may help to alleviate negative feelings so many black people have towards whites.

 

 

True, but you know... to me personally, his being mixed race is more relevant than his being black. And also the fact that his mother was a cultural anthropologist who was married to an Indonesian dude for awhile as well as a Kenyan dude.

 

This is not a guy who's ever had the luxury, in other words, of being able to stereotype people based on race or religion or culture, or see people who are "different" as inherently people to be feared. We really need that right now, IMO.

[amplayer]

Calling Barack Obama a centrist is completely false if you look at his voting record. He scored #1 in National Journal's ranking as most liberal in 2007 because of how he actually voted.

 

Click here to see a defense of National Journal's poll by its editor.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

He scored #1 in National Journal's ranking as most liberal in 2007 because of how he actually voted. Click here to see a defense of National Journal's poll by its editor.

 

 

National Journal Article:

 

 

Although Obama has had a solidly liberal voting record in the Senate -- the most liberal record in 2007, according to an analysis by National Journal -- his policy advisers tend to be moderates . Indeed, Obama explains his roll-call record as a product of votes that push senators to one extreme or the other, and he maintains that his presidency would move the nation into a less ideological, more cooperative era.

 

 

Sorry, I just don't see the guy as an "extremist" at all.

[Lee Flier]

Oh and amplayer (and everybody else) - here's a cute little tidbit that I bet you don't know: Obama and McCain (along with 3 other senators) were both co-sponsors of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. It was passed unanimously in the Senate, and Obama later introduced an amendment to it which was also co-sponsored by McCain.

 

Obama has also introduced several bills on earmarks, which have never made it out of committee. Hmm, I wonder why.

[Lee Flier]

 

Calling Barack Obama a centrist is completely false if you look at his voting record. He scored #1 in National Journal's ranking as most liberal in 2007 because of how he actually voted.

 

 

Well, see Ken's post. I think that while voting records tell you something, they don't by any means tell the whole story. Often someone will vote against a bill even if they agree with it in principle, because it contains earmarks they don't like or is missing some key specifics which the Senator sees as problematic. In such cases the bill is often amended and re-introduced, and the same person will vote in favor of it. Political opponents can then use this fact out of context to paint the person as a "flip flopper."

 

Then too, if you actually read the bill and/or read the person's positions on the bill, it will often not be as straightforward a decision as it's characterized in soundbites. For instance, my Congressman voted against the bank bailout. I thought that was cool so I was planning to vote to re-elect him. But then I went to his web site and looked at his actual position. It turns out the reason he didn't vote in favor of the bill was because it didn't contain enough perks for the banks! He wanted more tax cuts and more pork thrown in that would benefit the same people who screwed us in the first place. So guess what? He ain't getting my vote, even though it appears on the surface (by his vote) that we agreed on this issue.

 

I think a better way to get a sense of a Senator's or Congressman's positions is to actually read the legislation they introduce or support, or watch them debate issues on the floor (which you can see on C-SPAN). But most people don't do that... sigh.

 

Anyhow, by any objective measure Obama is a rank and file, mainstream Democrat who would govern basically from the center with a slight twist to the left. Even Bill Kristol said that on television the other night (even though he's still voting for McCain), and that's exactly why quite a few conservatives are endorsing him. Even the Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama, and they've never in their history endorsed a Democrat. And of course, since Obama was an Illinois senator and Constitutional Law professor before being elected to the U.S. Senate, the Tribune knows his track record better than anybody does, as they pointed out in their endorsement (and Ken you might want to read the endorsement too if you haven't already, as they directly address the "experience" question).

[amplayer]

 

Well, see Ken's post. I think that while voting records tell you something , they don't by any means tell the whole story. Often someone will vote against a bill even if they agree with it in principle, because it contains earmarks they don't like or is missing some key specifics which the Senator sees as problematic. In such cases the bill is often amended and re-introduced, and the same person will vote in favor of it. Political opponents can then use this fact out of context to paint the person as a "flip flopper."

 

 

To make an excuse for Obama's liberal voting record by claiming that he may have voted against it because of earmarks is truly laughable.

Although Obama's presidential campaign has recently forced him to say he is against earmarks in the future, Obama's record for earmarks is an atrocious tradition of bringing home the bacon. Click here for a comparison of the two candidates earmark record.

 

Obama's record is his record. You are making excuses for it instead of admitting it is what it is.

I have no problem pointing out the MANY flaws I find in McCain. For instance, I have made it plainly clear (in various HC threads) that I found it truly appalling that McCain would back the bail-out bill, especially the version they ended up with because it was clearly full of pork barrel spending that you and I get to pay for.

Why can't you do the same and admit Obama's voting record in the US Senate is far left of center?

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I have no problem pointing out the MANY flaws I find in McCain. For instance, I have made it plainly clear (in various HC threads) that I found it truly appalling that McCain would back the bail-out bill, especially the version they ended up with because it was clearly full of pork barrel spending that you and I get to pay for. Why can't you do the same and admit Obama's voting record in the US Senate is far left of center?

 

 

I can admit Obama's voting record, according to the National Journal (I don't know any other sources at this moment), is the most liberal. But I am not convinced that Obama is, as you put it, an *extremist* is due to his general character, the quote from the National Journal I cited earlier, and Lee's reasons. I just don't see that at all.

[Lee Flier]

Obama's record is his record. You are making excuses for it instead of admitting it is what it is.

 

I'm not making "excuses" for it, I'm only pointing out two things: 1) I don't judge any candidate solely on their voting record, for the general reasons I stated, and 2) Obama's supposed "extreme liberal" voting record does not really square with the nature of legislation he's introduced, nor his positions in debating issues within the Senate, nor the way most people who've actually worked with him (including conservatives) describe the way he thinks and governs.

 

Now as for whether his voting record is actually "far left" - I'd suggest we all just look at it and decide for ourselves, instead of reading other people's opinions of it:

 

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/

 

Feel free to point out anything you see as being "far left" - I don't see much that could be construed that way. Much of the stuff he voted for seems to have passed by a large margin, indicating that a lot of Republicans would've had to vote for it too. Same with a lot of the stuff he voted against.

 

Amazing how much less scary these things become when you're looking directly at the source and not using blogs as the basis for opinion.