Obama: is America ready for this dangerous leftwinger?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For most ordinary Americans, those not encumbered with an expensive education or infected by prolonged exposure to cosmopolitan heterodoxy, patriotism is a consequence of birth.

Ah, you gotta love those liberals! This is precisely what I've been saying in these forums time and again; a liberal looking down his/her long snoot and berating everyone else in order to elevate their own delusional stature and self importance.

The same arrogant and delusional thought process that motivates fat murderous drunkards like Ted Kennedy to "fight for those that can't fight for themselves", you know the poor and uneducated unfortunates not lucky enough to have been endowed with the same lofty faculties that Ted and Barack have........unfortunately the "unfortunates" are most of us!

Jeeze, liberals are just so damn full of themselves, aren't they????

Speak for yourself.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think we have to be careful throwing around those kind of generalisations, as they're not too much different from those in the article. Oddly enough for an article criticising a candidate for a lack of substance - the article itself appears to have a lack of subtance - relying on that innuendo stuff about Obama's wife not being "proud of this country". The only thing I do agree with is that Obama's campaign is riding on this euphoric promise of change - but that change may not be what people are really looking for. Is his agenda really that revolutionary?

It is rather bizarre to me that half the population of this country seems incapable of understanding or relating to the other half, so you end up with this "right wing / left wing" hooey. I suspect it has little to do with how people think as individuals. There are of course people who exclusively deal in soundbites on certain (though not every) issues. They are ignorant, at the end of the day.

For some, it is advantageous of them to polarize issues into left and right and then imply that one ideology is inferior to the other. The Republican Party strategists succeeded in doing just that during the 2004 election hot button issues. And not to let the Democratic Party off...they too have tried to do that as well, although not nearly as successful. But there are things that happen to this country that really effect the political landscape - our economy, for example, and particularly the home lending industry. People aren't thinking so much along ideological lines when they see house after house foreclose and their local economies tanking.

Right wing nut is a generalization, but it makes the point of saying that anyone who buys into the same empty rhetoric they keep trying to sell everyone else meanwhile reality shows them something completely different, they are being nutty. There are nutjobs on both ends of the political spectrum - they are the ones who insist until they are blue in the face that their ideology is superior. Americans will judge ideas on their own merit and not dismiss it simply because someone else labels it a left or right position.

I think you need only look at some of the postings here to see that this is not the case, on some of the issues at least. When you see people relying on soundbite politics to promote, for example the inherently unpatriotic as the height of noble idealism.. I have to say I'm not sure what to think about that, or what's going on in people's heads when they say these things. Do they actually believe them, or does it simply sound good to say these things? I dunno.

But yes - I do see stark polarisation as rather troubling, and it only seems to get worse around election time. What's interesting to me is that people seem to convince themselves that the candidates are somehow better than they are. On here at least McCain was largely reviled when he was behind in the polls - now he isn't, people seem to have forgotten (or rather - forgiven) certain of his ideas if it means he defeats the democratic candidates. Same holds true for BO (Vs. HC) - if you look at his positions, I wonder how many people are caught up in the "for change" rhetoric, and whether the changes he is promising would be changes that they would want.

HC and BO both 'say' that they will bring about universal healthcare (or whatever we're calling it these days) and get out of Iraq. JM 'says' he will keep the Bush tax cuts. Why should we believe any of these people?

My personal view is that some of the huge support BO has been enjoying may not be as much to do with an endorsement of his campaign but as a protest vote against HC.

Incidentally - on the illegal immigration debate - there doesn't seem to be one single candidate frontrunner in the presidential race who is campaigning on the hard-line anti-illegal immigrant stance that some folks (on here at least) have been calling for. Yet I'm guessing that many of those people will still for one of the major candidates regardless of their stand on the policy issue that is/was most important to them (apparently).

IMO the economy will be the biggest priority for most voters, rather than Iraq or Illegal Immigration.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Number 6

[Alex+R 0]

The only thing I do agree with is that Obama's campaign is riding on this euphoric promise of change - but that change may not be what people are really looking for. Is his agenda really that revolutionary?

Oh my god. Could somebody please do some research and stop regurgitating what the pundits say and passing it off as an opinion? No, his agenda is really not that revolutionary. I don't really know anyone who thinks it is. Most of the people I talk to say the "change" they're looking for is a politician they can relate to, not his policies, which are more or less close to Hill's.

People like him. If they didn't, they wouldn't vote for him. Americans have not been shown to "protest vote" very often. We just stay home.

[PlatyPius 5]

I'm starting to think that *I* won't vote for anyone, just because I'm tired of all of this damn politics sh!t. He said, she said, he did, she did. F##k it.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I'm starting to think that *I* won't vote for anyone, just because I'm tired of all of this damn politics sh!t. He said, she said, he did, she did. F##k it.

i'm voting for platy

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The only thing I do agree with is that Obama's campaign is riding on this euphoric promise of change - but that change may not be what people are really looking for. Is his agenda really that revolutionary?

Oh my god. Could somebody please do some research and stop regurgitating what the pundits say and passing it off as an opinion? No, his agenda is really not that revolutionary. I don't really know anyone who thinks it is. Most of the people I talk to say the "change" they're looking for is a politician they can relate to, not his policies, which are more or less close to Hill's.

People like him. If they didn't, they wouldn't vote for him. Americans have not been shown to "protest vote" very often. We just stay home.

In other words - people want to put a nice face on the status quo (a-la - 10 years of Tony Blair).

Is that really the best that can be hoped for?

Edited February 25, 2008 by Number 6

[SteveLaura 0]

The only thing I do agree with is that Obama's campaign is riding on this euphoric promise of change - but that change may not be what people are really looking for. Is his agenda really that revolutionary?

Oh my god. Could somebody please do some research and stop regurgitating what the pundits say and passing it off as an opinion? No, his agenda is really not that revolutionary. I don't really know anyone who thinks it is. Most of the people I talk to say the "change" they're looking for is a politician they can relate to, not his policies, which are more or less close to Hill's.

People like him. If they didn't, they wouldn't vote for him. Americans have not been shown to "protest vote" very often. We just stay home.

In other words - people want to put a nice face on the status quo (a-la - 10 years of Tony Blair).

Is that really the best that can be hoped for?

Altho' I'm supporting Obama, this is my fear also. It would be nice to think that, if nominated & elected, he can change the 'game', but there's obviously going to be a lot of opposition to that ideal. That said, with his grass roots support and his experience in community activism, I'm hopeful that some of that change that is being touted will continue to come from below. I'm surprised, actually, that Republicans don't like that message more - saying that there's only so much he can do as President and he wants people to enact some change in their communities themselves.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When we lived in CA - we saw Arnold Schwarzenegger get elected Governor amid a groundswell of popular opinion and his election promise that he would "change the game" and take power back from the special interests in Sacramento.

Several years later, he has done little to effect that sort of change.

Can this be done as President - probably. But the entrenched interests are also that much stronger.