Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If anyone brought up the hardships on the troops, many of the presidents supporters would say "Well, they volunteered" as if that means anything goes." Well, they didn't volunteer for a world class clusterblank. They're entitled to believe their Commander in Chief knows what he's doing. This one clearly doesn't. I'd say Bush owes every military member an apology, especially the families of the ones he had killed or maimed.
Originally Posted By planodisney I agree with x-san. We realy do need to vote based upon what will please the world community.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You made the comment about Obama's "real self" which suggests you know something we don't about him. What is it?<< It's not that some believe they know something about the "real" Obama. It's the nagging doubt about what we don't know. Hillary and McCain's negatives are pretty much out there for all to see. But with Obama we are still in the fun house aspect of his candidacy. Unnerving stuff keeps popping up. And there's this unease that the worst of it may not appear until after the election. True, it's irrational. But it's real.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Unnerving stuff keeps popping up.<< What stuff? Jerimiah Wright? Well, if the most unnerving stuff is Jerimaih Wright, whoopdeedoo. Nutty preachers are nothing new. We have had nutty preachers claiming that 9/11 was God's vengence for us tolerating gays. And GOP candidates don't do a lot to distance themselves from those preachers, certainley not in the same way Obama has had to. It's a fun house all right. With GOP spin doctors waiting around each corner attempting to scare people. Irrational fear has worked for them for so long, it's all they seem to know.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And GOP candidates don't do a lot to distance themselves from those preachers, certainley not in the same way Obama has had to.> On the contrary. Obama at least faced a dilemma when he found out some of the things Wright said. "I've known this guy 20 years. I've heard him say countless wonderful things from the pulpit. But he's also said these other things... what do I do?" McCain faced no such dilemma. He had no compelling reason to go out of his way to embrace and seek the endorsements of people who blamed 9/11 on gay people/feminists/ACLU or called the Catholic church the "great whore" (both of which happened before McCain sought their endorsement, and were all over the news). No reason at all - except for political gain. He felt he had to appease the hard right wing by embracing the very people he had once called (rightly) "agents of intolerance." I like a number of things McCain has done over the years, but this is one of the more cravenly political (in the worst sense of the word) things I've seen in recent years. Because these guys ARE agents of intolerance and they actively work to enforce inequality and in general make life more difficult for people like me.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>What stuff?<< You know there's been a lot more than Jeremiah Wright. There's Obama's staunch support, then sudden abandonment of Wright. There's the Rezko matter. The "bitter" speech. The ties to William Ayers. The flag pin nonsense. Yada yada yada. As I said, it's irrational, but it's real. And there's an uneasy sense that it isn't going away. >>Nutty preachers are nothing new. We have had nutty preachers claiming that 9/11 was God's vengence for us tolerating gays. And GOP candidates don't do a lot to distance themselves from those preachers, certainley not in the same way Obama has had to.<< As far as I know, no one in the GOP spent twenty years under the weekly tutelage of any of these nuts. Nor do they consider them friends and mentors. Nor have they asked them to perform weddings and christenings for them. So, no, they haven't had to suddenly distance themselves when it became obvious to all that it was politically expedient to do so.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Please understand I am not attacking Barack Obama or any of his supporters, I am just explaining why some people (including me) are uneasy at the prospect of an Obama Presidency. In my lifetime we have had two largely "unknown quantities" as President. Both Governors, both very charismatic (in their initial run for national office), and both presented as agents of change. I refer, of course, to Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Okay?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You know there's been a lot more than Jeremiah Wright. There's Obama's staunch support, then sudden abandonment of Wright. There's the Rezko matter. The "bitter" speech. The ties to William Ayers. The flag pin nonsense. Yada yada yada.<< No, you don't get to add three yada's and count them among the "scandals". That suggests there is "a lot more." But beyond what you mentioned, what is there, specifically?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, you can say that about Clinton, too - a governor, largely unknown nationally, more charismatic than either Carter or Bush, and who campaigned specifically on "change." And he was pretty successful, if not entirely. <As I said, it's irrational, but it's real. And there's an uneasy sense that it isn't going away.> What's "real" is that it IS irrational. Sure, it won't go away, because the GOP - if not McCain then certainly 527 groups - will bring it up every day. But we don't have to fall prey to the irrationality. Stuff like the flag pins (which you yourself term "nonsense"), so-called "ties" to William Ayres which are flimsy to say the least and yet treated as an "issue." We don't have to give in to this stuff. <So, no, they haven't had to suddenly distance themselves when it became obvious to all that it was politically expedient to do so.> No, they went out of their way to embrace them when they DIDN'T HAVE TO, because they thought (at least for the primaries) it was politically expedient to do so.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>No, you don't get to add three yada's and count them among the "scandals". That suggests there is "a lot more."<< Hmm. First of all, I wasn't citing "scandals." I was pointing out that unnerving stuff has been coming up based on the idea that we really don't know much about Barack Obama. So off the top of my head I cited FIVE different things, and you still don't get my point? (P.S. In another thread, the Hamas "endorsement" was mentioned. So there's six. Or a "half dozen," to make it sound more impressive.) It isn't that Obama is a scandal ridden cypher who will implode in office. Nor is it that he is a paragon whose innate goodness of character and impeccable background will lead us into a golden age of peace and friendship. It's that we don't know. And it unnerves some of us.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <pointing out that unnerving stuff has been coming up> It's only unnerving if you allow yourself to be unnerved by ephemera.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It's only unnerving if you allow yourself to be unnerved by ephemera.<< Precisely. It's unnerving because people don't like Obama's politics and so they let something as superficial as a freakin' flag pin justify their "unease." Just say you don't like the man's politics and say why. There's really no need to invent non-issues (hard as some might try).
Originally Posted By DlandDug This has gone far afield from the original assertion: >>It's not that some believe they know something about the "real" Obama. It's the nagging doubt about what we don't know. Hillary and McCain's negatives are pretty much out there for all to see. But with Obama we are still in the fun house aspect of his candidacy. Unnerving stuff keeps popping up. And there's this unease that the worst of it may not appear until after the election. True, it's irrational. But it's real.<< It actually has nothing to do with liking or disliking Obama or his politics. It has everything to do with the feeling that we still are finding out who the "real" Obama is. That's what predicated this whole discussion in the first place. Tell the truth. If you could go back to 2000, knowing what you now know about the "real" George W. Bush, would it make a difference in how you viewed him as a candidate?
Originally Posted By mele <<Tell the truth. If you could go back to 2000, knowing what you now know about the "real" George W. Bush, would it make a difference in how you viewed him as a candidate?>> To tell the truth, I knew it was going to be *bad*...that's why I went out and bought a cheesecake to drown my sorrows in on election night.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> It's that we don't know. And it unnerves some of us.<< We don't "know" what any candidate will actually do. We could be just as unnerved about any of them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Tell the truth. If you could go back to 2000, knowing what you now know about the "real" George W. Bush, would it make a difference in how you viewed him as a candidate?<< Absolutely. But unless we develop time travel, no one will know what any of teh candidates "real" selves will be.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Absolutely. But unless we develop time travel, no one will know what any of teh candidates "real" selves will be.<< Exactly. If anything, I'd think one should be much more uneasy about McCain or Clinton, both of whom have been all too willing to say whatever they need to say to get elected. McCain's gone from being critical of Bush to being buddy-buddy with him and his policies. Any number of things have come out about these candidates that could be eye raisers. I'd be more concerned about McCain not knowing the difference between al Qaeda, Sunnis, and Shias than I would the lack of a flag lapel. But, I think McCain does know the difference and simply made a gaff that's easy to make when you're tired on the campaign trail. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt than invent a fake controversy - like, say, over someone's preacher or the Pledge of Allegiance.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'd be more concerned about McCain not knowing the difference between al Qaeda, Sunnis, and Shias<< Wow, I worded that terribly in my rush of typing. Try, "I'd be more concerned about McCain not knowing the difference between Sunni al Qaeda and Shi'ite Iran."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan A fresh perspective... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxn7grwgKx8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...7grwgKx8</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>We don't "know" what any candidate will actually do. We could be just as unnerved about any of them.<< To an great extent, that is true. With McCain and Clinton there is much more sense of who they are and what they stand for. With Obama it's not so sure. As I have consistently said, it may be irrational, but it's a real consideration.
