Obama Vs. Clinton. Greaves Vs. The world. And then there's John Mcain.

[James]

[quote]Of course it is impossible to prove, in any capacity, that she believed X or Y. I made assumptions based off the tone of her campaign. I assumed that because Bill was acting like an angry parent at a little-league game when she began to lose that there was a certain sense of entitlement there. When she cried in the wake of Iowa because the campaign trail was becoming hot, I assumed she was panicking. That she never believed some random nobody could actually win the first primary state.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think it's impossible to prove that she believed X or Y. She obviously believes that she's a good candidate for the job, or else she wouldn't be running, lol. That's self-evident surely.

As for Bill...maybe he had a sense of entitlement. I don't know. But I never got that impression from Hillary. I do think Bill damaged her campaign significantly, so we agree there.

As for the crying in Iowa...I have no idea why she cried. I just think it's a huge assumption to say she cried because a) it was getting hot and b) because she had some superiority complex when it came to Obama.

I mean, she's human just like anyone else. I did see a lot of criticism of her emotion during the campaign, which I thought was pretty ridiculous.[/font]

[quote]C'mon, James. He's a black man running for President in a country that was heavily segregated and openly racist not even 50 years ago. He's got a crazy name to most Americans (not to mention his middle name). He didn't even have an entire term in the Senate under his belt before launching to the national spotlight for the Presidency. All of this is against the odds -- he's the stereotypical "American dream" story.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Oh this is all very true. But what's your point? I agree with everything you've said here. And this goes back to me telling you about the "Obama story", which is a narrative that has been very popular.

So... yeah. We agree on that. I'm not sure how that relates to what I had originally said, about the spin and all the rest of it.[/font]

[quote]He brought record number of voters (specifically amongst the youth) to the polls for the first time. He got an immense number of independents and Republicans voting for him. He's shattered the fund-raising records. If you step back and look at it, it's almost unsettling how much support he has. Call it bleary-eyed or what have you, but he's gotten massive numbers involved into the political process.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, again, that's all true. None of those facts are in dispute.

The problem is when this sort of information turns into the entire story. Nobody would deny that Obama's rise is history, whether he wins the presidency or not.

However, it's very easy to become so swept up in the narrative tide that we forget to say to ourselves "Hang on, this guy may actually become president... let's step back for a moment and scrutinize his policies rather than constantly pedalling the obvious surface issues".

Historic or not, there are still journalistic standards that the media should be held to. And all candidates - no matter their ethnicity or whatever - should be held to the same objective standard.

That's all I'd ask.[/font]

[quote]Yes, he did ride the media wave. I guess I don't really see it as a potential negative or a point that could cause doubt in his ability. I just see his command over the news as good strategy.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I suppose this is just where we disagree. You're looking at it from the perspective that he ran a good campaign, whereas I am concerned about the implications of a media-backed/elected candidate and the corresponding bias against his opponents (not just Hillary, but primarily Hillary).

Maybe that is a summary of our positions, I don't know. I just think we are sort of looking at two seperate facets of the campaign - I'm not interested in talking about whether or not Obama's policies are right (or whether he even has the ability to be president), because I view that as an entirely different discussion from the one we've been having.[/font]

[quote]Well, I feel like we've had a pretty healthy discussion on this... so I'll make a few closing responses. I'm pretty sure you don't feel like reading even MORE replies from me haha.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It's cool. I really appreciate that you put the effort into these discussions... I think a lot of people just don't bother. It's understandable though, since politics doesn't interest everyone.

But yeah, it's been a good discussion. And I do enjoy reading your responses; one reason I like OB is because I am interested in seeing different perspectives on all kinds of subjects. Politics is just one that I'm personally interested in. :catgirl:

I think we have more passionate and well-informed members than many other similar communities out there. So I'm always very happy to see some serious discussion mixed in with the fun stuff (as long as we still have plenty of lighthearted stuff, which we do). :catgirl:[/font]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Who's to say her ability to govern is actually any good? Well, the voters. And she herself will make a case, as she has tried to do.

However, my point was that people can't judge her ability to govern based simply on her demeanor or on media hype. I think most people would agree with that.[/font][/QUOTE]I do agree that you can't judge her ability to govern based on her demeanor or the media, but the same goes for judging it based on being voted for. Voter confidence doesn't equal competency when it comes to actually governing successfully. We've certainly had people voted in who turned out to be quite the disappointment when it came to being an effective president.[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]If you disagree with - and understand the implications of - Clinton's policies, then you are not someone who I would include in my comments.

As I said earlier, this point of view has nothing to do with which candidate is ultimately better. You can like or dislike either one. The point is just that the representation has generally not been equitable.[/font][/QUOTE]I figured as much which is why I came back and clarified that my decision to not vote for her was far more than how she comes across or she is presented in the media.

The thing is as Kathy pointed out, people choose to only base their opinion on the media or other hype where others prefer to have someone who will do a good job. I've voted, on a more local level, for officials who demeanor wise annoyed the hell out of me, but career wise had a track record of following through on what they said they would do. So though I personally disliked them, they still got my vote just the same.

I'd love to see the media be more even handed in their coverage but on some level they air what gets the most attention. Hell even here in Utah there are stories and other important discussions that never see the light of day, we have to look to other states or online sources to get our information.

Anyone who really thinks the media is unbiased and fair is fooling themselves if they really think that's enough to be informed on the candidates.

[James]

[quote]Voter confidence doesn't equal competency when it comes to actually governing successfully.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Absolutely. This could be true for Obama as well. Or any candidate, really.[/font]

[quote]Anyone who really thinks the media is unbiased and fair is fooling themselves if they really think that's enough to be informed on the candidates.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I agree with this. And I think it's a shame that the media have such an ability to push one candidate over another.

I remember in the last election, looking at the minor candidates who were never considered "front runners". So many in the media used this term and it made me wonder who decides to call a person a "front runner" if there is no electoral success to back it up. It seems to be to go back to that idea of the most entertaining narrative.

The news media are increasingly about entertainment and narrative, rather than facts or objective analysis.

I mean, yes, some of the minor candidates in the last election simply couldn't pony up the dough - so that hurt their campaigns.

But you have to wonder - if the media won't give them the time of day, how can they spread their message far enough to actually solicit donations? Yet those who have massive media support are far more easily able to reach wide varieties of people and therefore solicit a greater slice of the donation pie.

So in that sense, I think it's very unfortunate.[/font]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]I'm resurrecting this thread to post a long thought set out by a friend of mine a few days ago; it holds with a good deal of the current election, I believe, and still further beyond. People of either "side" should take note of it, because my friend speaks not only to each side, but [I]for[/I] each side.

Since my friend is a sincere Christian (as I try to be), his beliefs are driven by his convictions, and he does mention that near the end. If that offends you, I am sorry you feel that way, but I maintain that his statements are well worth the read.[/FONT]

[QUOTE][SIZE="1"][align=justify]When it comes to politics, I usually try to stay informed, while staying out of political arguments. I feel that it is important to know what is going on in the world, and to have opinions about political issues, while still retaining an open mind and a willingness to respect the differing opinions of others. Tonight, though, I'm venturing out into the turbulent waters of the political Blogosphere...

Two words that I have come to loathe are "liberal" and "conservative". Both words are thrown around so carelessly and slanderously that they have lost any semblance of real meaning. They are nothing more than mutually-exclusive labels that detract from the core truth of American Democracy: in order to be successful, we must allow for the free exchange of ideas between people with opposing views.

As for me, I come down near the center of the political spectrum... which is also where I think a great majority of Americans would find themselves if they did an honest self-evaluation free of party affiliations. It really is a pity that politics are such a polarizing, divisive issue, because outside of those who live on the fringes of the far-left and far-right, most of us are not that far apart on the issues (Issues? Remember when politics was about issues rather than semantics and personalities?).

Democrats tend to put more emphasis on social issues, because most "liberals" (for lack of a better word) have a genuine desire to help those in need. They want to give a helping hand to anyone who needs it. This is a noble desire, and civic-minded people who devote themselves to such causes should be applauded.

Republicans tend to put more emphasis on issues of personal responsibility, because most "conservatives" have a genuine desire for every man and woman to better themselves through hard work and self-sacrifice. This is also noble, and those who have worked hard and achieved personal success should also be applauded.

The problem lies when we let ourselves be drawn toward the fringes. Most political "isms" (socialism, capitalism, fundamentalism, etc) start out as great ideas, but when taken to extremes they breed corruption and ill-will. One reason that American Democracy is so great is that, when it works, Patriotic men and women with differing viewpoints engage in civil debate to reach a compromise that is in the best interest of the people. That is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they were drawing up the Constitution... unfortunately we're a long way from what they probably envisioned.

Instead of working together, balancing each other out to reach basically "moderate" or "centrist" conclusions (where most Americans fall), liberals and conservatives both tend to fight against the other to prove themselves right, rather than compromise on issues where, partisan politics aside, they probably aren't too far apart. This pulls the country toward both extremes. This is our "culture war".

Those on the far-left see the Government's duty as being to protect the unfortunate by "enforcing" civic service and charitable aims. They view those who disagree with them as greedy, uncaring, and cynical.

Those on the far-right see the Government's duty as being to protect the hard-working by "enforcing" an environment conducive to capitalistic gains. They view those who disagree with them as frivolous, patronizing, and idealistic.

Both sides have lost sight of the middle ground. Neither can recognize that both feel that they are protecting the innocent, nor understand why anyone would not want to do so. Our society brutally abuses the term "rights". Rather than agreeing that all Americans have a responsibility to respect and care for their neighbor, those on the right feel like they have a "right" to keep what they've earned, and those on the left feel like they have a "right" to have what they need.

One thing Obama and McCain correctly have in common is the belief that the American political system is broken. Unfortunately, I feel like neither of them are going to be able to fix it continuing their current paths. Both are pandering to voters and polarizing the issues, which is how we got in this mess to begin with. The problem with politics is politicians.

I feel fairly confident in saying that most Americans would love nothing more than to see "liberals" and "conservatives" come together to compromise on social and economic issues (and find out they aren't such different things). When socially-minded Democrats work with capitalistic-minded Republicans, the result ought to be a system of government that makes it possible for all Americans to find fulfilling work, get a good education, become financially stable for life, and give back to our society through civic service to make provisions for those who are truly unable to do these things (orphans, those with mental and physical disabilities, the elderly, etc). Philosophically, this should sound good to both conservatives and liberals, but it can only happen when those in elected office put aside their ego, quit trying to be right, and try to do what's right for the nation. Not an easy task, but theoretically, that is what the country's Chief Executive and its legislators are paid to do.

As a final post-scripted note, I should clarify that when I use the word "compromise" I mean it as a purely political term. Naturally, I would never advocate compromising one's morals. However, morality is not a legislative issue. We live in a fallen world, and no one can expect everyone to share his or her moral views. As Christians, we are commanded to regard our neighbors, even our enemies, with grace and love. That commandment is apolitical. If we wonder why our society's moral fabric has decayed, ought we not to examine the way we conduct ourselves around those whom we would seek to influence, to see whether we meet the standard set forth in God's Word? (Romans is a great place to start)

I'll leave you with this hypothetical example as food for thought: Is it possible to compromise politically on an issue such as abortion (why not open that can of worms) without compromising morals? For instance, there is a high likelihood that Barack Obama will be our next President. On moral grounds, most Christians are opposed to his stance on abortion. However, as Obama himself has said, "we may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of abortions in this country." Would it not be possible for Pro-Lifers to work within the bounds of the laws of the land (like them or not) together with Pro-Choicers toward a common goal of reducing the total number of abortions in America? Ask yourself this: While fewer abortions may not be as good as no abortions, is it better than the status quo, which is the result of both sides stubbornly refusing to cooperate?[/align][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I agree with the general direction of that quote, for sure.

I notice that there is a lot of partisanship in the U.S. and that it almost seems to be more vitriolic among average voters as opposed to the politicians themselves.

I mean, being partisan does make sense in terms of an election, but so much of the partisanship misunderstands the opposing party. When most people talk about one party being better than another, or one candidate being better than another, they almost invariably display ignorance about the candidate they oppose. Either that, or they simply disrespect the genuine positions of that candidate (or they just personally attack them).

I personally don't think that the American political system is broken, at least in the most technical sense of how laws are made. I think that the Congressional system actually has some key advantages over the Parliamentary system.

But there are two things that really irk me. One, lobbyists. I know that I've defended lobbyists before, but what I'm really saying is that I think there's a difference between petitioners and professional lobbyists who are registered as such.

I do think that Congress should have (if it doesn't already) a specific system to deal with the consideration of petitioners' issues. But I think that should replace the registered lobbyists, who have far too much influence in Congress.

Secondly I think the other big issue is the way in which campaigns operate. We've seen how out of control they can get in terms of spending, for instance. So much emphasis is placed on fundraising and less and less is being spent on policy articulation.

I think if I had to choose any two issues that I would personally want to change, it would be those two. You could then argue about the Electoral College and the direct voting system later on, but I almost think that the former two issues would have a bigger impact on the integrity of American politics (as least as far as perceptions go).

Also, just as a footnote, I don't think that polarization of issues is what stops genuine political reform. I think the issue is just that changing any of these fundamental cogs in the political machine requires significant effort (possibly even consitutional change). And in any country, especially a democracy, consitutional change is generally the most difficult thing to achieve politically.[/font]

[Allamorph]

[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]But there are two things that really irk me. One, lobbyists. I know that I've defended lobbyists before, but what I'm really saying is that I think there's a difference between petitioners and professional lobbyists who are registered as such.

I do think that Congress should have (if it doesn't already) a specific system to deal with the consideration of petitioners' issues. But I think that should replace the registered lobbyists, who have far too much influence in Congress.[/font][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]Put more specifically, "special interest groups" should ideally exist to give the minority a clear and audible voice, NOT to control policy. That's not democracy, that's oligarchy.

I wouldn't see them disappear, either. But I'd like to see them bound a little more than they are.

[QUOTE][I][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Secondly I think the other big issue is the way in which campaigns operate. We've seen how out of control they can get in terms of spending, for instance. So much emphasis is placed on fundraising and less and less is being spent on policy articulation.[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
My first bone with the fundraising deal is that the Federal government offers to match a candidate's funds (up to a certain amount, I know) with tax dollars. I'm not really sure I agree with that clause; essentially, it means that we as a nation might be paying the campaign costs for someone we don't even want.

The second is that so much money is spent on advertising a face, and eventually slinging mud, instead of getting word on policy ideas out. Personally, I want to know that the candidate understands what they can and cannot do as president, and makes no claims to do anything that is beyond his means

[QUOTE][I][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Also, just as a footnote, I don't think that polarization of issues is what stops genuine political reform. I think the issue is just that changing any of these fundamental cogs in the political machine requires significant effort (possibly even consitutional change). And in any country, especially a democracy, consitutional change is generally the most difficult thing to achieve politically.[/font][/I][/QUOTE]
Yeah, the root cause is definitely not issue polarization. In fact, I'm not sure there [I]is[/I] a single root cause, so much as it is a collective buildup of factors—some of which being media sensationalism, which is blatantly rampant no matter what station you watch; a general lack of understanding of how the system is supposed to work, most likely due to people having other concerns occupying their time; and politicians who are not in office to help the country run itself, but are there to run the country and make money.

(That last one is not to generalize all politicians as such, merely to acknowledge that such people exist in significant numbers.)

Also, I personally wonder that we allow ourselves to place so much weight on the office of president, when it is Congress who writes up most of the policy, and a great deal of the fine print added in. I suppose that's the inherent risk of assuming an exposed position, though; you are the top dog of one branch, therefore the mistakes of the other two are on your head.[/FONT]