i think that the problem with this shot is that it invites comparisons between obama's posture and the relative up-rightness of the finger in the foreground. faced with such an artificial standard of up-rightness, i would be grumpy too.

but i like that shot---i like all the As--in the sign, in the background (the building), inverted in the clapping hands--and the O's--in the hand that bears aloft the Important Index relative to which Scale is imputed (rightly or wrongly)--and the main circuit of O's that connects the shape of obama's head to the O in the center of the wavy flaglines to the O of the hand which holds aloft the Important Index.

many vowels: they're spraying all over the place.
too chaotic for television, that.
not Focused Enough on the Image of the Leader.
the Leader has to Subdue Vowels.
if he can't subdue vowels, where does that leave us?

that'll change after the election.
you'll have the image you want, pan.
don't worry.

Well, there are lots and lots of pictures from that event of him smiling and looking pleasant. My point is, in the split instant of that particular shutter-snap, he wasn't smiling. But that image could be used to draw all sorts of conclusions about the man--generally tending to confirm the view already held by the viewer.

The media has turned today's campaign into a Rorschach blot.

Finger pointing to Obama's watch, "Now is the time for Change."

each individual image becomes a rorsach test--yes---and television presents a streams of footage that comes to the same thing, but in motion. this is what i was trying to get at in no. 9, but i think i was distracted by something i'm working on so it came out strangely.

the bottom line is that the images of Authority are being entirely collapsed into the world.
what pan seems to want is an Image he can believe in.
but to believe like that, you have to forget it's an image.
i don't see how that's possible---and even if it is, it's certainly not desirable.
it is a little tunnel leading to authoritarian politics.
whence stalin.

Gallup recently had a poll on the need for a third party...and the country is split.

I wonder what the numbers would look like IF a specific third party was identified.

Would the liberals still believe a third party was needed if it was the Libertarian Party or Constitution Law Party?

Would libertarians or conservatives be for a third party if it was the Green Party?

There is the conundrum...which third party do those 47% want...and would they still want a third party if it was not one that was close to their ideological leanings?

Ok..... let's see..... Reagan states thinking the mikes are off something along the lines "we're bombing the USSR" jokingly to test the mikes and everyone went apeshit.

Nixon lost the 1960 election arguably because he looked really bad during the first debate.

Again, these are not random, off the street comments from these people.... they fucking KNOW the cameras are rolling. Some of them are at rallies some of them are in fucking interviews, where they know cameras are rolling.

There are gaffes and there is just plain idiocy. The above are not simply one time gaffes but over and over and over.

I am not being an idealist...... some of you are just so blind and wanting to believe in someone that you are ignoring reality.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between your idealism and mine.

I also find it somewhat sad that someone has to stoop low and talk about what he believes my private life is like, not knowing a damn thing aout me other than what I have written here.I do not appreciate it and look at it like a personal attack simply because my views are not agreeable to his.

The same with someone telling me I would like Stalin as a leader.

I don't see where I talk to anyone about their personal lives in here or comment in any way, why is it ok for someone to do that to me?

I do have my views and stances and the one closest is the one I trust least and scares me most, the gaffes just add to how poor this election really is.

BTW, in the future anyone posting a thread on what a candidate says or their stances, or how they act..... I will remind them of how they sat here arguing none of that matters because it's just YouTube following them around.

Jesus Christ, if we make excuses for our politicians on how they act and what they say in front of cameras, WTF are we missing when the cameras are turned off.

pan...arent you doing the same thing with this observation about other TFP members:

'some of you are just so blind and wanting to believe in someone that you are ignoring reality."

Thanks for informing me that I am ignoring reality...you know me so well!

pan--i didn't say this:

or anything like it.
i was talking about the problems that attend collapsing the image of a leader into the reality of political leadership.

read the posts.

If you're referring to my post #30, I apologize for any offense you were left with. It wasn't intended to offend. I actually thought I saw some reason behind behavior that has seemed to me to be highly unreasonable. I thought I finally understood the world you operate in enough to be able to connect to it a little bit. If you heard any sarcasm in that post, please know that you added that, it was meant in nothing but respect.

I have a lot of respect for idealism. And I'm under no illusions about the hard road that idealists walk.

He's a horrible human being. I mean it. He's about as far from a statesman as I can imagine. His biggest successes are basically accidents.
Did you see her campaign? She fought dirty every step of the way. Not only that, but she has basically no experience.
He was an interesting choice, but no one paid him attention.
Israel lover, Iran hater.
No foreign policy experience.
Cries a lot, not actually a republican.
He's an originalist to the point where it becomes religious, which means his policies wouldn't have prevented the recent bubbles.
No foreign policy experience, hates atheists.

There doesn't exist someone perfectly suited for the position that's interested.

Is that attacking your private life or talking about you in context outside of this thread?

NO.

But the attack on me went beyond this thread and my views on this subject and that is very low because the person who talks about my private life knows NOTHING about me.

I would be more than happy to show it to ya.... but I'm over it because that showed me they had to attack me personally because they either lack the courage to talk to me privately and get to know me and would just like to simplify their view of me..... or they have to denigrate my private life so that they can feel better therefore validating their argument thereby validating their views.

And yes, to some degree I believe in this aspect I am doing the same. I am stating my view, being told over and over the same thing about how my opinion and how I feel is "idealistic, can't happen, etc etc" which I find as excuses and I continue to grow and add more reasoning and examples to back how I have come to my opinion and I am attacked personally... I am repeatedly told I am an idealist and so on.

The mantra still continues on one side while my side continues to give examples of how past gaffes cost elections..... and yet in this election the gaffes are tremendous and they continue to fly and "it's ok" there ae excuses for them."

One thing that hurt Carter, among many, but a horrendous gaffe that cost him..... he talked about how he asked his daughter what she thought of nuclear arms {or something along those lines} it made him look weak and it hurt him

There are more from every president and presidential nominee the problem I have is that I have never in my life seen us have to choose between 2 village idiots for the highest office in the land. The man that we show the world best represents us... The man we turn to to inspire us in times of troubles.

These are times of troubles and these men have no clue how to inspire.

pan...we, not just you and me, but all of here see things in our own unqiue way.....your reality is not the same as mine or anyone else's...or

"Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks."

We would all be better served if we heard more..."we agree to disagree"...rather than "I am right and you are wrong."

You dont think Obama is fit to govern or has a clue how to inspire....I do....we agree to disagree!

I wholeheartedly agree.I als believe that we can learn from others views when we show respect and open mind.

The problem lies in the fact most of us believe we have open minds but when challenged or we see something we do not like, instead of talking it through and helping each other understand, we attack because it does challenge.

It stems from the top of the party down to anyone and everyone who follows politics.

I think I'm going to take George Carlin's point of view on this matter. If you don't know what that is, well, shame on you, but here ya go:

pan--you seem to confuse disagreement with you and close-mindedness in general and then compound it by conflating disagreement with you and personal attack. because you do that, it kinda follows that you'd see rejection of your way of seeing a particular problem as an attack on your way of thinking--but it really is nothing of the sort--it's more that your way of seeing this particular question of "who can inspire as a leader" follows from assumptions about the relation of image to reality that are very much particular to yourself and which you open up for discussion by the way you framed the op.

everything you have written here since follows from your assumptions, as if they are not part of the discussion. most everything that you've generated in response to what you've written simply operates from other assumptions and reprocesses the material that you organized in one way in different ways.

there's no attack in it, so far as i can tell.
it's tedious that you seem so fond of taking discussions in this direction.

speaking for myself, i wish you'd stop doing it.
there is a potentially quite interesting debate here that you're smothering because you mistakenly think it's all about you.
it isn't.

My contribution to this question may be found in my avatar. I'm committed to it this year, because I think it's the right choice.

Count me in.

That's your opinion, not a fact. If I say that one of the candidates actually inspires me, you'd have interpreted that as an attack. It's just not that way.

Don't take politics personally. It's awesome to put your passion out there, but we all have to take things with a grain of salt. Lighten up. And if the passion's that strong, take Gandhi's advice. Be the change you want to see in the world.

From reading the myriad threads about this election, I would deduce that is not so. It is more a case of the lesser evil, that more are voting against McCain, not FOR Obama and completely "forgetting" that, while one of those will surely get in, they are not the only ones running.

I find it odd that you would say this. I think I must be reading a lot of different posts. Perhaps we all just see what we want to see.

I'm probably in the middle somewhere. I'm voting for Obama, I've supported him for some time now. I don't agree with everything he proposes. I don't think he's 100% honest. I simply like him and his ideas a lot more then McCain. I sincerely wish there was a chance a third party candidate had a chance. Sadly I don't see that happening. To me the US is like a drug addict or an alcoholic, until we hit absolute rock bottom we're unlikely to change our ways.

While it's not overwhelmingly so, in the poll thread, out of 44 responses (and not all were direct answers to the poll), 7 stated that they were not voting for who matched their ideals, but against the other guy. This seems to be par way too often, unfortunately.

Im not sure what poll you're talking about...but 7 out of 44 not voting for candidate who matched their ideal is 16%.

Nationally, the percentage is probably a little higher...but by any measure, it is not MOST or MANY. It is a relatively small percentage of the voters.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/2008-us...ml#post2534392

Is this the poll referred to? If so and the not-happy-with-my-vote is your count based on posts, can you directly correlate the posts to the votes, ng?

Yep, that's the one...
out of 44 posts, 22 were not directly answering the question/poll, leaving 22 that did. Out of those 22, #3,4,6,21,26,41 &44 stated their vote was not because of believing the candidate they chose, but against the other.
7 out of 22 is more than 16%...one of those 7(#6) is kind of ambiguous so let's say 6 from 22 or about 30% give or take, of a decidedly liberal but small sampling of respondents.
In the real world, even if that figure would drop to, say, 20% of the general population, that is a LOT of dissatisfied citizens who are merely falling prey to the two-party elitism and being of the mind that they "have no choice" but to vote against the bigger boob.
Elections have been won by much smaller margins. Just think if even 16% of the undecided or "against the other" voted truly for the candidate they liked, regardless of party affiliation, the change those two keep babbling about might actually occur...

In the first election in 1789, G. Washington received 100% of the popular vote (he basically ran unopposed) and Adams was the presumptive VP nominee ....yet John Jay, John Hancock, George Clnton and others all received electoral votes.

I wonder how many of those Jay/Hancock/Clinton electoral votes were FOR them or AGAINST Washinton/Adams coalition...some were Federalist, some were anti_Federalist.

There have always been and always will be "protest" votes, but IMO you are making it out to be a bigger issue than I believe it is. Where is ANY data (not polls on discussion boards) that it is greater this year than int he past?

Its probably about 1 out of 5 nationwide this year and I just dont find that so surprising and probably not that different from most recent presidential elections.

But...we see what we want to see.

As someone who currently works as a field organizer, I can say with confidence that many people are voting FOR Obama this year, more than they are voting against McCain. The number of people who come into my office every day to ask for an Obama sign, button, bumper sticker, or to volunteer is a little overwhelming - and this is in a safe state. Over the past few months, I've talked with hundreds of voters, and while they are certainly concerned about the prospect of Sarah Palin becoming president, the overwhelming reason that they want to show their support for Obama, or ride out of state to volunteer for him, is because they like him and generally agree with him. There's no denying that there are some blind followers among these supporters, but many of them are thoughtful and recognize that he is a human being, like anyone else, and is flawed. Even among my co-workers, I don't know anyone who agrees with Obama's FISA vote for example, but that doesn't negate the many other things we may like about him.

People are genuinely excited about this election, and it shows in the number of people I see and speak to every day and in the number of new registrations. A lot of these people are saying it's the first time they feel like they're voting FOR a candidate.

Hey, speaking of which... I made an Obama campaign contribution last month and requested that a car magnet be mailed to me in Iceland... it hasn't shown up, so I'm wondering if they don't ship internationally? I still want my magnet, even if it's after I get back to the US... just to have my piece of history. :)

/threadjack :)

I'm lost how does 16% win an election?
-----Added 29/9/2008 at 12 : 27 : 34-----
Check your junk folder for something like this-

I never said it was different than any other( we see what we want?)
I am saying it's the same old shit....
Tully, 16% can sway a vote result, not win it...even I know that. Hence, the word "margin"...

I agree that the undecideds will again be let in charge of choosing the next president.

BTW, hot avatar! :thumbsup:

The fact that there are millions of new voter registrations this year, more than in any recent election, the majority of whom are attributable to Obama, would suggest it is not the same old shit.

The fact that for the first time in any recent election, a candidate (Obama) is receiving more than 50% of his contributions from small donors (less than $200) would suggest it is not the same old shit.

I understand that it might be the same old shit for you...but projecting beyond that is disingenuous.

Numbers or links? Trying to find them myself but all I got so far was Obama's voter registration drive of 1992 when he was a "community leader"....


When Clinton ran (Bill), the same was said-voter registration was booming..I'm a cynic-I think registration would continue to rise as Americans come of age more and more and PSAs, etc., urging registration are saturating media.

Going thru no less than 30 years of presidential campaigning and calling it the same old shit might be "disingenuous" (I'd have to look that up but I'm lazy), but there really is nothing new here....including the loudness of those who think "their" guy is the only guy(or woman).

Do a search....voter registration rising (soaring....off the charts....record number) and read the articles to see the trends by party and the reasons given for the surge in registrations this year....it is not because "people hate both candidates."

Democratic Registering in Record Numbers

States See Leap in Voter Regisrations

Here is a different look:

http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/VOTE...0905152555.jpg

Nationwide, there are about 42 million registered Democrats and about 31 million Republicans, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press.

The Democrats have posted big gains in many competitive states, including Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado and Florida. They have also been targeting historically Republican southern states.

Since 2006, the Democrats have added 167,000 voters in North Carolina, while the Republicans have added 36,000. The Democrats' biggest voter registration goal is in Georgia, where the Obama campaign hopes to register 500,000 voters before the election, said Dean, who has spent the past month traveling the country on a voter registration bus tour.

"The Obama folks are serious about Georgia," Dean said. Georgia has added 337,000 voters since 2006, but the state does not identify them by party affiliation.

In Pennsylvania, the Democrats have added 375,000 voters since 2006 while the Republicans have lost 117,000.

If you take the time to look deeper in many of these states...much of the increase is attributed to Obama.

Then consider the other fact I mentioned.....the percent of small donors for Obama higher than any previous candidate in recent years.

And finally, I dont think I ever said my guy is the only guy.

The point that I raised was to question the assertion that more people hate both candidates this year...or are voting against a candidate, not for a candidate this year.

There is simply no data to support that assertion.

Where did I say they hate one over the other more this year than any other?

I've said it several times...-voting against one instead of for the other(ala Bush-Kerry), party elitism, empty promises, slamming opponents instead of pushing issues, and last but not least, empty rhetoric about change...

is
the
same
old
shit.

There will be NO change until change occurs with two-party elitism, including voting against instead of for....is history. And, as long as everyone ONLY votes along major party lines, I don't see it happening.

I agree that many voters would like to see a third party...as long as it is their third party.

Libertarians dont want a Green party and vice versa.

I think
the
same
old
shit
even with all its warts and limitations, has worked pretty well for 200+ years.

And, I will repeat one last time.....based on record voter registration numbers, record small donor contributions, polling data, observations by field staff like Secret Method, etc....I think it is reasonable to suggest or conclude that most Obama voters are voting FOR Obama, not AGAINST McCain.

I havent seen any data to suggest otherwise.

It's certainly if anecdotally clear from the conversations I've had that people this year are voting for or against Obama. Nobody I know is voting FOR McCain.

This phrase..."two-party elitism"...I do not think it means what you think it means. (Really, that statement doesn't make much sense actually, I just wanted to make the Princess Bride reference.)

Anyway, "two-party elitism" isn't the proper term for something that is borne out of the very structure of our elections, and has nothing to do with elitism whatsoever. The fact is, our system of plurality voting is destined to lead to two parties. There's even a term for this: it's called Duverger's Law. Elitism has nothing to do with why it's always
the
same
old
shit
(love
that
enter
key)

I agree 100% that we could use more options, and I think a lot could be done to move in that direction (a short list: 1. Ensure that the requirements to get on the ballot are the same for third party candidates as they are for major party candidates, 2. Return control of presidential debates to the League of Women Voters (one more link on this issue) or the Citizen's Debate Commission, 3. Make the requirement for third party debate participation 5% in national polling again, like it was before Ross Perot scared the establishment in 1992, and 4. Migrate to a Condorcet method of voting, where the winner is the candidate that would defeat every other candidate in a head-to-head matchup, and where voters are able to rank candidates in order of preference).

Still, the fact that third parties are actively discouraged - even beyond Duverger's Law - has nothing to do with whether or not people are voting FOR Obama this election. There will always be a decent chunk of people who dislike all the candidates, whether there are 2 or 20, but the fact is that voters are generally mobilized FOR Obama in ways that go beyond what is normal. Registration is swelling in record numbers, and it is concentrated in states where Obama has greater support. There are lengthy delays for simple campaign materials like yard signs because so many people not only plan to vote for Obama, but want to publicly display their support. There are unprecedented levels of volunteer involvement, and many of these people have never before volunteered with a political campaign - but Obama has inspired them to stand up and be part of the Democratic process in a way that goes beyond drawing a line or checking a box.

There's no denying that some people are voting AGAINST McCain rather than FOR Obama, but the FOR votes this year are certainly looking to be more than any other election in recent history (Clinton benefited greatly from votes AGAINST Bush in 92, not to mention the Perot spoiler, and while one could argue that voters voted FOR Clinton in 96, it was such a sleeper of an election he might as well have run unopposed). I'm sorry that, for whatever reason, you can't find anything to like about either major candidate, but don't conflate your own experience, and perhaps that of your peers, with the entire nation.

SM...I agree with your observations, re: more options.

I would only add that I think a constitutional amendment would be needed as well...to abandon the electoral college...or we would face presidential elections going to the House more frequently with the increased likelihood of no one candidate receiving an electoral majority.

A constitutional amendment would make for a great public debate!

dc_dux: No need. A Condorcet voting system ensures that a candidate always receives a majority (Condorcet voting is essentially an enhanced version of Instant Runoff Voting). And without moving away from plurality voting, nothing else matters much anyway, because plurality voting will always lead to two dominant candidates.
-----Added 1/10/2008 at 01 : 28 : 06-----
Oh, but a constitutional amendment would be required to demand that states use a Condorcet method in electing federal candidates. Sadly, the mathematics of elections and terms like "Condorcet method" aren't exactly sexy enough to hold the interest of the average voter.

The Every Vote Counts Amendment was introduced several years ago...but I dont think it addresses the Condorcet method.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States.