Talking to the middle class today both McCain and Obama pledged to protect them from the threat of foreclosures and the fat cats on Wall Street. Neither candidate explicitly mentioned that they were trying to assuage the fears of the middle class, both have postured themselves as the candidate who would help them out the most during this financial crisis.
Obama released a new ad as well, described here, in which he attacked McCain's healthcare plan. Obama is obviously reaching out to any voter who does not have healthcare or is afraid that it may become too expensive to afford. Basically Obama is addressing lower to lower-middle class Americans. This is a constituency that he has been struggling with, so releasing an ad specifically addressing their concerns is something that his campaign needs to focus on.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
More from the campaign trail,
Obama, Ike, and McCain;
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/13/1393418.aspx
The world prefers Obama;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm
These two articles show two interesting sides of the election campaign going on. The first, from MSNBC discussed how Obama chose not to appear on SNL because he felt it wouldn't be prudent with so many people suffering from Ike. I've never quite been able to figure out why politicians can't be good humored even in the face of sad news. I mean, so long as their not making fun of the hurricane victims I don't see how it could be viewed as offensive. Politicians will always do all they can to save face I guess.
The article then goes into how after offering condolences and support for those affected by the storm, Obama went into his stump speech railing on McCain for apparently have no serious educational plan. What I love about the republicans is that they can be hurt by anything. McCain's shot back that it was sleazy for Obama to be making, "personal attacks" against the Senator. Maybe I'm just so stuck in my Democratic thinking but I can't even conceive of how an attack on the lack of policy plan could be taken personally. And you know that even if McCain made a blatant personal attack, he'd be able to justify it somehow.
This whole false sense of moral outrage seems to be a running theme for McCain's camp. Obama attempts a discussion on policy, and McCain gets too offended to actually respond with what his policy is. Wouldn't that have been the easiest way to shut Obama up? I could respect McCain if he came out and said something to the effect of, Obama's got his facts wrong because my educational policy is going to be X. But no, we get outrage at a personal attack. Man, the debates are gonna be painful if this keeps up.
The second article discussed how in a poll of 22 countries the world population generally is hoping that Obama wins. On a topic not related to the election at all, I wish American news was more like the BBC. The sample size used for this poll was 22,531, and this wasn't a meta-analysis either. The depth of reporting seems to be so much deeper abroad, sadly it's harder to say the same about American media. But that's a topic for an entirely different blog.
The poll found that overall 49% of those surveyed preferred the idea of Obama becoming the next American president compared to 12% wanting McCain. The most oft cited reason for wanting Obama to win was that he would be able to improve US relations with the rest of the world. This is a point that I think should be emphasized by Obama's campaign. McCain is trying to corner the market of foreign policy experience, but his experience might not be such a good idea. Obama's emphasis on accepting and embracing the nuances and gray areas of foreign relations is a breathe of fresh air. Obama while on a trip to Kenya with his wife took the time to get a public HIV test with Michelle(referenced in this article http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=25853). Obama is a man that can actually go out and try to improve relations abroad. It's one thing for a president to say that we need to help remove the stigma associated with HIV testing in Africa. It's fundamentally better and completely different to be willing to go and get a public test done in a country where some people are killed for being tested.
And the world can see this, a majority of the global population is hoping for a president who is going to be willing to negotiate, to talk with foreign leaders whether or not we're on good terms with that country, and someone who will quite literally walk the walk. For some reason McCain seems to be winning voters over by saying that shunning a nation is a good idea, saying that we should be threatening military action. People need to realize that yes, the world is becoming a scarier and more violent place. But more violence, even just implicit threats, is only making this issue worse. Forget shoot first ask questions later, we need questions first and discussion later, then as an absolute last resort would violence even enter the equation.
This goes back to the point that McCain spins his military experience to make it seem like he'll make American safer. This is wrong. What will actually make America safer is a highly diplomatic foreign policy, voting Obama will make America and the world a safer place. But hey, that's just me and world's opinion.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/13/1393418.aspx
The world prefers Obama;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm
These two articles show two interesting sides of the election campaign going on. The first, from MSNBC discussed how Obama chose not to appear on SNL because he felt it wouldn't be prudent with so many people suffering from Ike. I've never quite been able to figure out why politicians can't be good humored even in the face of sad news. I mean, so long as their not making fun of the hurricane victims I don't see how it could be viewed as offensive. Politicians will always do all they can to save face I guess.
The article then goes into how after offering condolences and support for those affected by the storm, Obama went into his stump speech railing on McCain for apparently have no serious educational plan. What I love about the republicans is that they can be hurt by anything. McCain's shot back that it was sleazy for Obama to be making, "personal attacks" against the Senator. Maybe I'm just so stuck in my Democratic thinking but I can't even conceive of how an attack on the lack of policy plan could be taken personally. And you know that even if McCain made a blatant personal attack, he'd be able to justify it somehow.
This whole false sense of moral outrage seems to be a running theme for McCain's camp. Obama attempts a discussion on policy, and McCain gets too offended to actually respond with what his policy is. Wouldn't that have been the easiest way to shut Obama up? I could respect McCain if he came out and said something to the effect of, Obama's got his facts wrong because my educational policy is going to be X. But no, we get outrage at a personal attack. Man, the debates are gonna be painful if this keeps up.
The second article discussed how in a poll of 22 countries the world population generally is hoping that Obama wins. On a topic not related to the election at all, I wish American news was more like the BBC. The sample size used for this poll was 22,531, and this wasn't a meta-analysis either. The depth of reporting seems to be so much deeper abroad, sadly it's harder to say the same about American media. But that's a topic for an entirely different blog.
The poll found that overall 49% of those surveyed preferred the idea of Obama becoming the next American president compared to 12% wanting McCain. The most oft cited reason for wanting Obama to win was that he would be able to improve US relations with the rest of the world. This is a point that I think should be emphasized by Obama's campaign. McCain is trying to corner the market of foreign policy experience, but his experience might not be such a good idea. Obama's emphasis on accepting and embracing the nuances and gray areas of foreign relations is a breathe of fresh air. Obama while on a trip to Kenya with his wife took the time to get a public HIV test with Michelle(referenced in this article http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=25853). Obama is a man that can actually go out and try to improve relations abroad. It's one thing for a president to say that we need to help remove the stigma associated with HIV testing in Africa. It's fundamentally better and completely different to be willing to go and get a public test done in a country where some people are killed for being tested.
And the world can see this, a majority of the global population is hoping for a president who is going to be willing to negotiate, to talk with foreign leaders whether or not we're on good terms with that country, and someone who will quite literally walk the walk. For some reason McCain seems to be winning voters over by saying that shunning a nation is a good idea, saying that we should be threatening military action. People need to realize that yes, the world is becoming a scarier and more violent place. But more violence, even just implicit threats, is only making this issue worse. Forget shoot first ask questions later, we need questions first and discussion later, then as an absolute last resort would violence even enter the equation.
This goes back to the point that McCain spins his military experience to make it seem like he'll make American safer. This is wrong. What will actually make America safer is a highly diplomatic foreign policy, voting Obama will make America and the world a safer place. But hey, that's just me and world's opinion.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Maybe Palin's kid could have used some of this.
Reading the NY Times this evening I was honestly looking for the "pig in lipstick" article but I stumbled across another one that I just couldn't help blogging about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
The headline is, "Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy"
The short and long of the article is that McCain is lying about Obama's history with education. In a new ad McCain claims that Obama supports "comprehensive" sex ed for kindergartners. Obama never actually sponsored this bill, only voted for it in committee, and even then it was never actually passed into law. The legislation called for an overall comprehensive plan for sex-ed, not comprehensive sex-ed for kindergartners.
Playing with rhetoric. The oldest trick in the book.
The only sex-ed that the plan proposed was for five and six year olds to learn about bad touching. How could you possibly attack the idea of teaching kids "Stranger Danger" What type of terrible parent are you to not want your kid to learn about that? Obviously the ad isn't trying to dissuade anyone from educating our youth about the potential risks they may encounter (I'm totally fighting a Larry Craig joke).
What the ad is doing is playing on the fears of many that sex-ed somehow leads to massive orgies between an entire class of 7th graders. Hey - at least they'd be using protection. So many people (the conservatives especially, but I honestly don't wish to discriminate based on partisan lines here) have such a twisted view of sexuality that they fear even whispering to people who aren't 18. In full disclosure I grew up in
So what does all this say about the candidates? Well Obama, years ago once voted for a pretty good idea in committee. And McCain is willing to twist the intentions of a moderate bill to gain a couple of points in battle ground states. Not to mention that the unstated minor premise of the ad is, "Vote McCain, he never want anyone to talk about sex."
Test test test...
one two three test.
This would be my first blog ever. Figured I should try and make sure it worked.
This would be my first blog ever. Figured I should try and make sure it worked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)