Stitch on 19/9/2008 at 14:53

---

That's a pretty simplistic take on the people one has in his/her past. Obama was never particularly close to Ayers, who he met in his post-radical college professor days. They served on two non-profit boards together. It's really not very sexy once you get down to the facts. It's possible they were building pipe bombs between approving grants, but it seems unlikely.

As for Wright, I honestly don't see the big deal. Obama addressed the topic well in his (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU) speech on race, which was the most open discussion of race issues I've ever seen from a prominent politician. Obama stuck by the man up until Wright did his inflammatory, self-serving media tour back in the spring, at which point what other choice did Obama have? I understand why the cynical might view the situation as Obama simply dumping a political liability, but I read it as Obama feeling slapped by someone who once inspired him. Getting fired up on the pulpit and giving voice to not-exactly-constructive racial tension is one thing, but using a newfound national soapbox to throw molotov cocktails is another.

Now here comes the bit none of us like to even look at: while Obama has steered understandably clear of this topic, I'd argue that a lot of this comes down to race. That isn't to say that you or pavlovscat are racist on any level--what the fuck would that be, right?--but the cycle of media attention that fed these interpretations has, at its center, at least the otherness of Obama, the first black presidential nominee. Had Wright been white and simply been railing against, say, gays, while it would have been news it would have resided clearly in our comfort zones (oh those outspoken preachers!) and the story wouldn't have quite resonated with the public consciousness the way it has (indeed, McCain had his own outspoken pastor connections, as does Palin).

Even the controversy of Obama's past association with a cracker like Ayers feels racially fueled, as it plays into the "black man as Muslim, and we all know what Muslims secretly are" fears that play strong with some. It fits nicely next to the propaganda mouthpieces of the right like Rush Limbaugh who repeatedly "accidentally" refer to Barack as "Osama."

Having said all that, I do want to stress that I'm not arguing that anyone who buys into the Ayers/Wright controversy is racist, or that anyone who doesn't support Obama is racist. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might feel like Obama isn't up for the job, an opinion which I'll respect as long as it's informed. Even concerns about Obama that are racially motivated are understandable, if unfortunate. Race relations are a complex thing and you can't expect everything to smooth out overnight.

irving_forbush on 19/9/2008 at 15:02

---

I hope you're wrong - unfortunately, we won't know who was right for about another 4 years.

Frankly, if any other politician was running besides John McCain, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. Call me naive - it's OK.

I am sick of the constant and seemingly never-ending partisan battles in Washington. This country does not need the left side of the aisle in power, or the right side in power. I want the aisle to assert its power; i.e. the center. I want politicians in power who are not afraid of the aisle (and occasionally crossing it to get things done). After all, we don't elect people to fight the other side; we elect them to GET THINGS DONE. How can they do this if they can't work with the other side?

I believe that John McCain can do this better than Barack Obama, and offer these as evidence:

1. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain-Feingold) McCain-Feingold and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain-Kennedy) McCain-Kennedy
2. It seems to me that with the present political climate, the best hope to break the gridlock in Washington is to elect a centrist to the Presidency. You can define a centrist as someone who pisses off both parties. And no national political figure has done that more in recent memory than John McCain.

Comments, please.

Gryzemuis on 19/9/2008 at 15:42

---

Of course it isn't simple. And of course there are different streams inside each party. But when the internationalists get chosen, what will the others do ? Take a vacation for 4 or 8 years ? Nope, they will use their presence in the party to try grab power. They will have an impact on the party, and thus on the government. Voting for McCain is voting for the Republicans.



The only 2 questions are:
1) Can we afford a war.
2) Will it have any benefit to fight this war.

Answer 1), no you can't afford any wars anymore. The reason that the Iraqi war is fought are a) so that tax payer's money goes via army expenses into the pockets of the military industry and the old world industry, and 2) to help oil companies.

Answer 2), the Iraqi war is a guerilla war. You can never win a guerilla war. You lost the guerilla war in Vietnam. You're gonna lose now. Nothing will improve in Iraq. 250k civilians dead. This has been predicted before. During the first Gulf War, US didn't remove Saddam, because they knew it would leave Iraq in a mess. And now they proved their point.



These are the good guys ?
Kissinger is regarded as a war-criminal in many countries.
Powell is the guy who sold us the Iraq war. He might have disagreed, but he did sell us the war. He let the Bush clan use his credibility to go to war.
Unfortunately I don't know much about the others, sorry.

And what does McCain want ? What is his view ? AFAIK he hasn't told anyone who he'd pick in his government. AFAIK he just wants more troops in Iraq.

If you are right about different "parties inside the party", then maybe they should make that more explicit. Right now it is very implicit. All you can do is hope McCain picks the right Republicans, and not the wrong ones. I'd say the best solution is to make sure there will be no Republicans in the government.



Let's hope these guys get no power. But you can't predict that when McCain wins. McCain supported Bush. I've seen him on pictures with those guys. He doesn't say that these guys are wrong. In fact, he doesn't say anything about the Bush administration. Because he wants people to forget that his administration is gonna be very similar to Bush's.

McCain wants you to forget about the Republican party. He wants you to forget about Bush. He wants you to forget about issues. He wants the voters to pick the guy they like most. The guy they wanna drink a beer with. The milf they wanna fuck. That is why republicans put a total nitwit like GW Bush forward as their president. Why they made a senile actor like Reagan president. They understand that if they let the american people vote for a person, in stead of a party or a program, they only need a guy (or gal) who can PLAY the best that he is a likeable guy.



More proof that it isn't about one person. You voted for GWB, but you got the neo-cons. Nobody saw "neo-cons versus Al Gore" on their vote bill. They voted for a person. Bush. And they got the neo-cons. You might vote for McCain, but who says you won't get more neo-cons ? Or other crooks ? Everything is possible, it's still the Republican party.



Some hope. That's enough for you ?
Just keep the Republicans out of office, and the neo-cons can't fuck up your country anymore.



True. But why are they not more explicit ? And in particular, why is McCain not more explicit ? Why does he not say that he's gonna do things differerent than Bush ? He doesn't mention individual issues. He doesn't wanna do press conferences. (Something Reagan introduced, because he was a moron too, and was much better in 20 sec soundbites while running for his helicopter). Palin isn't gonna do interviews and press conferences, because she will expose herself as what she is: an actress/beauty-queen playing she is a politician.

The Republicans want you to vote for the individuals you like. That's why they have an old friendly guy and a milf running for office. That's why they bring in their huge families and all. They don't want you to vote for a party, a government or a program. Because they know they will lose there. They want to win on looks. It's the modern age. And it's a shame the media play with them (for the most part).



Yes, he matters a bit. But not as much as the rest of his clan and party. You talk about McCain in combination with potential advisors and potential programs. But most people talk about McCain and his veteran past, his wife, his fake smile, and other crap. And talk about Palin and her clothes, her hobbies, and whether he's been a bitch in Alaska or not. Not about issues like how your dollar lost 40% of its value, how your jobs go abroad, how oil is $4/gallon, how taxes did increase, how your taxmoney go to the arms industry and wallstreet.

Tell me, do you really think George W. Bush runs your country ?
Tell me, did you really think Ronald Reagan ran your country ?

It is in the interest of the Republicans to make the elections about individuals. Because they hire the best actors, muppets, milfs and strawpuppets to play the role.

Gryzemuis on 19/9/2008 at 15:51

---

Sometimes you need to oversimplify a bit. :)

Also, note that I am not American. So I know less details. I've lived in the US for a while. Had a H1B visa. Spent 18 months total there. But I read newspapers. And during the last few weeks, I've been spending quite a bit of time following the US elections. Because they are the most important event in the world during these years.

Also, I'm a bit older than the average gamer. (Although the average age here seem pretty high too). I grew up during the cold war. I remember the days of Reagan and Thatcher. Unemployement, grim outlooks, nuclear arms race. Then the USSR collapsed, Clinton came to power. And things were a lot brighter during the nineties. A lot brighter. Like a brand new world. Then Bush came and messed it all up. In my opinion, Bush (and his clan) are the real terrorist. They used 911 as a tool to scare the world, and used that fear to do all the things they could not have gotten away with otherwise. My country isn't much different, we follow the US. We keep people scared about Muslims and terror. Imho it's all exaggerated, and it keeps the world in fear for no other reason then political reason. As an example: one of the last things Bush is trying before he is kicked out: he aggrevated Russia into a new arms race. By pushing Georgia to invade S-Osssetia. And by building a rocket shield against Iran on the borders with Russia. By pushing Russia into an arms race, he basically guaranteed the US arms industry more profits (paid by US tax payers) for the next decade. It's all very cynical. But that's how I see it. The Bush clique manipulation world peace, the world economy, and anything else they need, to make the rich richer.

And I haven't heard McCain say he's gonna change the program. He might kick a few lobbyist from Washington (which I doubt). But he's not gonna change the program.

irving_forbush on 19/9/2008 at 16:16

---

1. I doubt that Ted Stevens or Frank Murkowski would agree with your implication that Gov. Palin toes the party line.
2. One of her first acts as Governor was to veto a bill that would have blocked gays and lesbians from health and other benefits provided to state workers's domestic partners. Cynics will say she did so because the bill was unconstitutional, and they may be right. However, that simple fact does not stop politicians from signing such bills (numerous states have passed similar bills only to see them overturned as unconstitutional). If she had been pandering, she would have signed & told her AG to fight it in the courts.

So I don't see how your assertions are defensible.