These are themes that have echoed throughout this campaign. Since the very beginning of the race, since even before then in Obama's '04 convention speech this has been a race about opposing world views.
Fear vs. Hope has already been played out slightly. Even the famous Obama slogan is shifting away from hope. But from my view (just slightly biased) McCain has run his campaign on the principle of fear. The terrorists will attack us again, Vote McCain; the sky is falling, Vote McCain; your children aren't safe, Vote McCain. Everything is much worse than you imagine it is, Vote McCain. Whereas Obama has relied on the idea that America is a strong and resilient country that has lost its way slightly, and we can get back on track so long as we have faith and hope that we can do the right thing. Obama voiced these sentiments again when he accepted the party nomination back in Colorado. Voters need to chose hope in the election over voting out of fear.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/obamas-closing-speech-seeks-unity-faults-mccain/
The concept of Unity vs. Division has been handled much differently. Obviously both candidates are going to be claiming the idea of Unity as a central campaign tactic. The most glaring example that comes to mind is the disgusting comments made by Palin and echoed by McCain about the parts of the country that are, "real America."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/palin-visits-a-pro-america-kind-of-town/?scp=1&sq=pro-america&st=cse
The underlying concept of this is that there are in fact Two Americas and what it makes me believe is that if McCain and Palin are elected they would only be concerned with representing the America that voted for them. As opposed to Obama with his message of unity no matter who becomes the next president.
The next president is going to inherit an extremely bad economic crisis, and at that point it is going to be more crucial for the President to be able to unite the nation under one grand cause than what the president's preferred tax policy is going to be.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
WHY AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT THIS?!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11trooper.html?scp=5&sq=palin&st=cse
John McCain seemed to have picked Sarah Palin to get another "maverick" on the ticket. He wanted to prove to America that he was the person that could bring change to Washington. One of the things that is implied when you say you're going to "fix" Washington is corruption and cronyism.
We've just discovered that Palin used both of these tactics while she was governor of Alaska, and yet no one is really talking about it. She used her position to unlawfully fire people based on a purely personal vendetta. Palin's sister's husband leaves his wife and suddenly Palin is using every ounce of her authority to get the man fired. She even went so far as firing people hirer up that refused to kowtow to her wishes to get the trooper fired.
What kills me is that no one is seriously talking about this. Maybe the media is afraid of seeming to sexist, maybe the financial stories are just truly more important right now. But this is an issue of the utmost importance and it needs to be discussed because this, in my opinion, disqualifies Palin from being the Vice President.
Voters want to know what candidates positions are on every topic under the sun: abortion, the war, the economy, the environment. People always hope that what a politician says while campaigning is what will actually happen. I'd be willing to go so far as to say most of the time politicians hold basically true to what they discuss during campaigns, but what really matters is knowing that the person has good judgement. Voters want to know how candidates stand on issues that are pertinent to them now. But we need to know that they will make the best possible decision when situations we cannot even imagine are presented.
The conclusion that the Alaska Inquiry came to illustrates perfectly the type of decision making we can expect from Sarah Palin. If she as Governor is willing to make corrupt decisions imagine what she would do if she was vested with the power of the Vice Presidency.
This is not some nit picking matter either. This issue needs to be a legitimate concern for every citizen of the U.S. I can only hope that with markets improving dramatically this story hits the news cycles and sticks.
John McCain seemed to have picked Sarah Palin to get another "maverick" on the ticket. He wanted to prove to America that he was the person that could bring change to Washington. One of the things that is implied when you say you're going to "fix" Washington is corruption and cronyism.
We've just discovered that Palin used both of these tactics while she was governor of Alaska, and yet no one is really talking about it. She used her position to unlawfully fire people based on a purely personal vendetta. Palin's sister's husband leaves his wife and suddenly Palin is using every ounce of her authority to get the man fired. She even went so far as firing people hirer up that refused to kowtow to her wishes to get the trooper fired.
What kills me is that no one is seriously talking about this. Maybe the media is afraid of seeming to sexist, maybe the financial stories are just truly more important right now. But this is an issue of the utmost importance and it needs to be discussed because this, in my opinion, disqualifies Palin from being the Vice President.
Voters want to know what candidates positions are on every topic under the sun: abortion, the war, the economy, the environment. People always hope that what a politician says while campaigning is what will actually happen. I'd be willing to go so far as to say most of the time politicians hold basically true to what they discuss during campaigns, but what really matters is knowing that the person has good judgement. Voters want to know how candidates stand on issues that are pertinent to them now. But we need to know that they will make the best possible decision when situations we cannot even imagine are presented.
The conclusion that the Alaska Inquiry came to illustrates perfectly the type of decision making we can expect from Sarah Palin. If she as Governor is willing to make corrupt decisions imagine what she would do if she was vested with the power of the Vice Presidency.
This is not some nit picking matter either. This issue needs to be a legitimate concern for every citizen of the U.S. I can only hope that with markets improving dramatically this story hits the news cycles and sticks.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
My Friends, my friends, my friends.
I swear I literally have that phrase stuck in my head now. Over and over McCain drilled those two words into our heads. Why? Because he's trying to make it seems that he's the average guy and Obama is the elitist. I like Chris Rock's argument for who we should elect, we need the man who only owns one house in office, not 13. McCain is up against the ropes, he knows he can't make direct attacks because with his poll numbers slipping it'd make him look more desperate. So he resorts to bizarre tactics like trying to make us all believe we're his friend. I say bizarre because of how extremely disingenuous it feels to me as an audience member. McCain saying that he's my friend just makes my skin crawl a little bit. You can't spout off terrible ideas for 90 minutes then expect me to want to hang out. I'm honestly curious what the numbers are for good ol' "Who'd you rather have a beer with" poll, because I bet Obama would win it.
This latest debate really, changed nothing. I didn't expect it to but there's always that outside hope that McCain will drop the N word or something insane. I'm frustrated with both candidates in how the talking points haven't changed at all from the last debate. The rhetoric outside the debates has become decidedly more pointed but both men seem afraid to be on the attack when their opponent is in the room.
The biggest issue was obviously the economy, but this is also where we see the sharpest division between the two candidates. Strangely, both want to lower our taxes and still save money, awesome! But Obama's plan actually explicitly states where the extra funds would come from for his domestic policy. McCain's plan seems to be prepared to be reactionary. Freezing all government spending is a bad, reactive idea, and this is his plan!
We all know that debates don't actually effect how people vote. But McCain does seem to be on a steady decline. So what's that mean then? Maybe the American people are sobering up to the fact that McCain's just not as good a candidate. Or maybe that's just me...
This latest debate really, changed nothing. I didn't expect it to but there's always that outside hope that McCain will drop the N word or something insane. I'm frustrated with both candidates in how the talking points haven't changed at all from the last debate. The rhetoric outside the debates has become decidedly more pointed but both men seem afraid to be on the attack when their opponent is in the room.
The biggest issue was obviously the economy, but this is also where we see the sharpest division between the two candidates. Strangely, both want to lower our taxes and still save money, awesome! But Obama's plan actually explicitly states where the extra funds would come from for his domestic policy. McCain's plan seems to be prepared to be reactionary. Freezing all government spending is a bad, reactive idea, and this is his plan!
We all know that debates don't actually effect how people vote. But McCain does seem to be on a steady decline. So what's that mean then? Maybe the American people are sobering up to the fact that McCain's just not as good a candidate. Or maybe that's just me...
Monday, September 22, 2008
Pandering to the various social classes
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.
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.
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)