What to do when you hate both candidates?
 

I knew this election was going to be bad and I truly want to believe somewhere down the line one of these men will turn this country around.... but for the love of God we are soooooo fucked. Are we truly nuts? Where are the JFK's, FDR's, Truman's, Reagan's???? Like them or hate them they truly worked to make America better...... These 4 candidates and VP nominees are just nuts.

The old nutjob who worries me about his sanity:






The man who is just dumb and can't speak off a teleprompter:








The woman who has a Reverend Wright herself:






And she scares me..... Darth Palin:



Which leads us to this man:







We are fucking doomed. If it all weren't so scary I'd swear this was a sitcom or reality show "America's Scariest President"....

"That's right America we have 4 people with microphones 24/7 saying anything it takes to get your vote..... and boy we have some truly funny statements from an insane old white man..... a well we can't say anything about him because anything we say would be taken as racist and not for what it truly is..... A woman that while she is the sexiest politician to ever run on such a ticket is .... well..... reminds us ofa sexy Wicked Old Witch of the West..... and finally the man who is so egotistical and lost he believes he can get wheelchair bound men to stand but yet humble enough to think a woman would be a better candidate than him.

I can't think of a time in my lifetime where I would have voted for someone instead of against. As a matter of fact, even looking back across American history I can only name maybe 3 (Washington, Jefferson, FDR) I would have voted for, and even they did things I strongly disagreed with. Until the day I myself run, I suspect this will simply be reality.

Chalk it up to the fact that one really cannot approach the oval office without some pandering; some concessions; some hypocrisy. Until there's a revolution, this will be the case. The job requires ambition, and ambition has baggage.

Shoot, even when I voted for Cobb in 2004, I wasn't voting for someone that really inspired me.

Look, pan, if we put you under the media scrutiny these people are under, you'd be caught on film saying some dumb-ass stuff too. We all would.

The question isn't whether they say silly things sometimes (and then, because of the situation they're in, those things hit youtube and are echoed around the world). The question is: what do they stand for and what direction will they move the country and the world.

Not Charlatan. Just saying.

Ah, but I'm not running for office. I say FUCK too much.

This is just some of the gaffes. A handful...... Look, I'll grant none of them are Bill Clinton but Hey Zeus Freaking Crisps... these people are running for the most important job in our country at a time when we disparately need strong leadership and I truly don't see it.

These people are complete and total idiots, I don't see one as true presidential material.

And to say "well we all make gaffes", while true...... each of the above aren't just YouTube fodder they are being used by the differing camps to show theirs is better.

I just brought it all together.

I look for a president to be somewhat well spoken, to know how many states there are... tired is a fucking excuse, gee as president he'll be needed to stay up late in a crisis and God knows what mistake he'll make because he was tired, but my favorite part wth Obama is the second anyone tries to point anything out about this man.... they are racist, they are hateful, they are idiots who don't know anything.......

McCain.... this man was a great uniter, could stand on his principles didn't care what others thought, was a truly good leader in that aspect, Presidential IMHO and now he's a GOP puppet shucking and jiving and saying whatever he can to get the core votes while the centrists are left scratching their heads....

Darth Palin, the woman is nuts..... pray to God get me elected, Bush Doctrine is to eliminate all those pesky radical Muslims,

and Biden..... just wow..... lol Biden.

So, to say it's just YouTube following them around and posting gaffes as they come is an excuse. These people are completely and totally insane, power hungry nutjobs that I don't see as having any type of plan to bring the US back to greatness or be inspiring. And we NEED that now.

I'm BEGGING you not to go there again. BEGGING.

These are along the same line as my thoughts. We don't expect our nation's leaders to write policy or conduct strategies or make tough decisions during a public interview or while on TV or in front of a large audience.

There is a difference between interacting with the public and doing your job as a politician. Measure these people by what they do, not what they say in public.

I voted for Nader in 2000...... I have to vote for the major candidate I fear least..... not like this year. I can say don't look at me I voted Nader.... but I threw my vote away and we ended up with Bush. Maybe that vote and others who think like I do mattered and had we voted for Gore, the world would be different. But I despised Gore and could not vote for him.... and I honestly thought he'd win anyway so my vote didn't matter.

This time I can't do that. I need to voe for the person I fear least and be able to stand up and say I need a shower and disinfected but I voted for the person I think will do less damage than the other guy.

That's not how we are supposed to vote.... I have never voted with a pessimistic view, well 2000 was in a way I guess, but not like this year. I am truly saddened that the majority believed these were the 2 best men in America to choose from.

to go a little further with what the other rb said above---have you ever played with an audio software like protools or audacity? you can load a recorded sound and the platform shows you a map of it from the wave-form and timbre viewpoint. you can also change the time-scale that you're working with, but the change in scale doesn't mean that your browser changes size--so you can see the track as, say, 4 minutes or you can see it in 1/10th of a second intervals and there's a sense in which they both look the same (alot of times the visual of zooming in on an time-interval registers as blowing up the waveforms, but you can control for that)--it's really easy to find yourself wandering about in the complexities of fractions of a second's worth of sound...you can built pieces from units made up of these tiny intervals and generate all kinds of complexity that folk will not quite hear but will not quie not hear when you run the piece in a more "normal" time-scale.

what lets you subdivide the normal time-scale of hearing (to continue with this) is the software---in the normal course of hearing/listening, intervals of a 1/10th of a second are "there" but we usually hear in patterns that are quite a lot longer than that, so functionally they are "there" but not necessarily "present" if you see what i mean.

the reason i mention all this is that not only are these people who are running for major domo of the oligarchy subject to amazing amount of television attention, but the technology itself has effects on how you think about what you're seeing. you can make loops of fottage of anyone saying something stupid or that sounds stupid and repeat it again and again until that's all you see. just as you could in principle dissolve a sentence that you are saying into a series of disconnected-seming 1/10th of a second sound intervals or you could, while walking, also be laced (in principle) under a microscope so that you would be simultaneously walking on one scale and be a space between molecules on another--in the latter instance, you'd still be walking as before, but the viewpoint defined by the microscope would exclude all but a space between adjacent molecules in a particular quadrant of your body.

tv bothers me alot in that it is a continuous stream of discontinuous scales of information---for example (another one) the little trainwreck that was sarah palin's attempt to answer a question about mc-cain from that heavyweight tv interviewer katie couric takes up about the same amount of time, in terms of footage, as sequences you might see on the invasion of georgia or the conflicts that have been unfolding between the united states and pakistan over american cross-border raids. the entirely trivial and the very large are made equal in terms of scale and are presented within a continuum of information homogenized in the same way. at any given point, you can decide to interrupt this flow by choosing to play loops of particular intereactions or segments of interactions over and over again, so that a space of 3 sentences can come to occupy the same time-scale as a war far away.

and because this is a possibility that's always available thanks to the way in which television packages infotainment, it's difficult to maintain a sense of perspective--and i think this holds for most of us---and very small things can and generally are made into very big things and very big things into small things.

what holds all this chaos together is ourselves, sitting in chairs.

this seems to me the most heavily tv mediated campaign i can remember, maybe because everyone, everywhere sees in the bush administration a kind of wreck and the folk in televisionland maybe see in that a chance to ramp up their importance by focusing on the rituals of transition for "us" so that we don't have to make any of these pesky choices about where to direct our attention, and then runs that through its usual kaleidoscope machinery, and so we find ourselves, sitting in chairs.

it's all very odd.

You didn't throw away your vote, Pan. You're only throwing away your vote if you're not voting for who you want to vote for. If Kucinich were still running, as an independent, Obama would lose my vote in a heartbeat.

No, I measure ANY man by the company they keep, how well they stick to their beliefs, how much respect they show people and by what they do....

These people are running for the Presidency.... not your mayor.... these are supposed to be the best, brightest and have great plans for the nations future and they are all fucking nuts, dishonest, don't have a true workable direction in which to lead. If any of these 4 people ran 20 years ago they would never have made it out of their second or third primaries.

What has Obama truly done?

McCain has had some great legislation but he has blown his reputation as a uniter and "maverick" totally away and now is just a GOP puppet.

Darth Palin.... the more she talks the more I bang my head against a brick wall wondering how I was duped into liking her at first.

And Biden..... I liked Biden, but the more I see of him he looks like an out of touch ego centric asshole. He did some very great things at one time but now he's the Democratic version of McCain.

So you tell me, who do you trust and why. Cause I just do not see it from any of these 4.
-----Added 27/9/2008 at 03 : 18 : 10-----
I have had this argument with LS. I would love to say that and believe it. But after 2000, I can't anymore.

It's just how I feel.

I want to be inspired in these dark times, I want a leader that can show he is rock hard in his beliefs and has a background to show he doesn't go with party lines he votes for what he feels is best not for him but for the country.

And out of these 4 no one is even close. McCain was at one time but he's just gone nuts now.

I have always been able to find something inspirational in the person I voted for in the past...... this year I can't find even a sliver..... I looked, I begged, I have tried to make slivers only to have them disintegrated not by anyone else but the candidate themself....... I truly am scared of what we have running. First time in my life.

Even in 2000 and 04 I hated Bush, but I wasn't that truly scared. I honestly believe in his eyes he had what he felt was the best intentions for the country. Who he surrounded himself with after and gave power to are different stories.

96 No one can argue Dole wanted what was est for the nation, again, Clinton just had better vision and plans.

92 Bush was carrying on what sold in the past for him but he was trying. Clinton just had better vision and plans.

88 Dukakis was a man with a very good vision and desire to better the nation.... he just lacked charisma.

I don't think any of these 44 truly have any idea or intention of trying to figure out what is best for the country. They have their own agendas and they want the power for their agenda and not one of those agendas do I see truly even in a mask and with the right marketing any intention of helping this country rebuild.

I'm going to go take a bath in Lysol now.... just thinking about this has me feeling infested and dirty.

Maybe this thing can be resolved down lines of party-ideology.

I like Obama, so this is obviously not my personal thought-process. But if both presidential candidates are equally lame to you, and neither VP candidate is a tie-breaker (or deal-breaker), you could vote the candidate you think will better enable those in congress who you generally agree with to move the country the direction you prefer? It looks like congress will be even more strongly Democratic next session. So the question might be: do you want generally-Democratic principles supported or thwarted?

why do you think it is the indivdual person who is so important? why is obama's personality or mc-cain's personality such a big deal? an administration is assembled along ideological and affinity (patronage) lines and operates collectively--with a vertical hierarchy--but still collectively--as vacant as i consider cowboy george to be, his administration was not deducible from his personality and has turned out to be far different (and more dangerous and incompetent) than his personality would have given any of us reason to expect (at least the first time--the second was mostly fear-mongering and machine politics in the ugliest possible sense that explains it).

geez pan, you act like a royalist, in that it's the person of the king who represents the unity of the state. maybe you are a royalist, in that tv kinda way.

but i don't think that corresponds to how anything actually happens, except for tv images--they happen that way, they focus on the individual person of the president, they would pitch you toward a basic misunderstanding of how the system operates.

Thanks but I say *a lot* of dumb ass things. We all do.

I am thinking that this election is the first with a truly "youtube" savy populace. Not only is the media scrutiny there (it has been for a long time) but now every yokel with a computer can upload these missteps and gaffes for all to see.

One would think that more scrutiny would be a good thing but let's face it... there is scrutiny and then there is quality scrutiny.

It becomes even more important to know the source of your information... to understand the inherent bias and to be able to "read" the infoscape. Never has the need of media literacy been more essential to the populace than now (and I think the need is only going to get greater).

pan..IMO, your argument only makes sense if all voters make emotional judgments of the candidates based on the number of gaffes....or past acquaintances...or other irrelevant issues. I dont doubt that many do.

And it falls right into the mold of making the election about image rather than issues.

Believe it or not, many voters take a more informed approach to the process and consider policy positions, depth of knowledge on the important issues, leadership skills (temperament, decision making process, etc) .....

Its a good thing youtube wasnt around for the first 200 years of the republic..I doubt any past president would have passed your test!
-----Added 28/9/2008 at 12 : 07 : 49-----

Oh, and I had to laugh at your "where are the Kennedys and Reagans?"

Based on your standards....What did Kennedy accomplish in his time in the Senate? Wasnt he just a rich guy who played off his war heroism and whose family made its money in bootlegging. Reagan, a B move actor who could read a script and "look" presidential, with broad ideological goals but only superficial understanding of many issues.

I am to a certain degree. I believe the president should show our best qualities, be well spoken, well versed in the world affairs. He should be among our brightest and best. He should be charismatic, have class and be able to off the cuff talk about what he believes in without fear. When I get excited I stutter and stammer, I can understand if one of these people would, but it goes deeper. These men make too many mistakes. It's not like these Youtubes are catching them in the streets or in private..... every one of the above gaffes were in public and at either rallies or in interviews when these people should be at their best and most well versed.

I guess we each see it in our own way.

You want a bright, charismatic person who can talk off the cuff about his policy positions...and I see Obama. You mentioned Kennedy, I see many parallels...except Obama doesnt have family mafia ties or cheat on his wife.

You want someone well versed on world affairs..and I see Biden; there is probably not a more knowledgeable person on foreign policy in the Senate

So they make bloopers in speeches, and may stammer, and have an ego. I dont look for perfection...cuz I know it cant be found in any candidate.

Pan, people like that don't run for president.

I would love to do that but the Dem party has been taken over by radicals and the issues I cared about are hardly discussed and easily sold out. The GOP, there are some strong issues that I like their stances on but over all they still are not close to getting my support.

When it comes to voting for the President this year... no matter how I try to look for a positive, I can't find one. I have stated for a long time, it comes to who I fear less. And even that is starting to become blurry.

I agree with Pan that the choices are like a bad joke, and I agree with Willravel that it's simply how it is....

So, I've decided I'm going to go live in Australia. It already looks like it was hit with a nuclear missile or fifty, so I can't imagine it getting much worse.

Harry Reid is a radical?

The most recent crop of new senators...Webb, McKaskill, Tester..and your own Brown (probably the most liberal of the bunch)...are radicals? Most new House members are more left center than left. If anything, the Democratic party is moving to the center.

Kennedy was a 6 year congressman, who "had a mixed voting record, often diverging from President Harry S. Truman and the rest of the Democratic Party". He was not only a war hero, the son of an Ambassador, a Pulitzer Prize winning co-author of a tremendously great read, but he had vision, courage, and was extremely well spoken, he was not afraid to take stances against the party.

Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild, a very good Governor of California before he became president.

So yes, both of these men had serious track records and pasts that were easy to follow. They took stances and very rarely backed down unless for good cause.

There are no Kennedys or Reagans this election. There isn't even a Carter, Nixon, Ford or Truman.

I would like to say we have a Millard Fillmore and Rutherford B Hayes running, but that would be a disservice to Hayes and Fillmore.
-----Added 28/9/2008 at 02 : 53 : 14-----
In 2 years what has the Democratic Congress truly done? What has it accomplished? What have hey tried to get passed for education, worker's rights and wages, healthcare. I have seen years of saber rattling over Iraq and oil {only as the prices sky rocketed}. I don't see them doing much.

They the issues that are important to me.... they remain silent on or sell out.


And yes to some degree Brown is the most Liberal, but he also is IMHO the most honest and truly caring of the bunch. He's a great Ohio Democrat..... that we need more of.
-----Added 28/9/2008 at 02 : 55 : 56-----
I like Australia also. New Zealand, Hell, even Canada. But the funny thing is.... they are making it easier and easier to come into this country and harder and harder to get out.

Our country must have some bad karma going on for us to get these nightmare choice candidates.
-----Added 28/9/2008 at 03 : 14 : 40-----
They used to. They still do. There were some damned good candidates on both sides that were honorable men and Hillary that could have made great presidents..... but the press dictated to the people who they wanted and made it so.

There are many good men in women in Congress and in state governments that could have made great presidents.

But the media doesn't want them. The powers that be makes sure they don't get the funds they need to run or stand in contention.

A nice list of whom I think would have made decent choices compared to what we have as president, some ran some didn't:

Trump
Hilary
Richardson
Bayh
Janet Napolitano
Voinivich
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney

An one of them would be a better choice than what we have now. And some of them I am not fond of their politics but they are strong and true to their beliefs and I firmly believe would have the best interest of the nation at heart and right or wrong, agree or disagree would do their best to do what was best.

There are far far greater people out there and the American people need to demand that the best stand up and be heard.

Not the 2 jokers we have running.

Hell, even Kucinich is better, he maybe wacky but he's true to his beliefs.

I'll give you war hero.
Joe Kennedy bought his ambassadorship with his wealth from bootlegging.
Profiles in Courage was a great read...have you read Audacity of Hope? It is Obama's political manifesto and explains his policy positions and how he arrived at them as a result of his life experiences.
Obama took stands against his party on several occasions..probably as many as Kennedy....examples: voted with Repubs on class action lawsuits, 05 energy bill, FISA reform
and I guess the Kennedy family mafia ties was ok for you. a double standard?

SAG really dealt with issues that affected most working Americans? more so than a community organizer for the same number of years?
Reagan's depth of knowledge on most public policy issues was nowhere near Obama's or McCain's and was probably closer to Palin's.


Their greatest accomplishment was restoring transparency and accountability to the Executive branch....and the first ethics/earmark reform for Congress in more than 10 years.

IMO, they accomplished about as much as they could considering Senate filibusters and WH vetoes.

Workers rights? Beyond the first minimum wage bill in 10 years. How about the reauthorization of the civil rights act that is currently under consideration and includes:

-- Equal Remedies Act of 2008
-- Older Workers' Rights Restoration Act of 2008
-- Preservation of Civil Rights Protections Act of 2008
-- Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act
-- Workers' Minimum Wage and Overtime Rights Restoration Act of 2008

Health care? How about their attempt to expand SCHIP to cover more kids of working families

Education? How about the Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Act or the Higher Education Act.

As i said...we see what we want to see.

Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What exactly did Obama do as a community organizer? I have yet to hear what he has done.

I find it funny someone who is telling me that the Democratic Party is still the party that stands up for what I believe and want my party to stand and fight for.... but is so willing to trash the man who is the ICON of the party I love, JFK and will stand up for someone who is not even in the same league.

That's like people trying to say McCain is the second coming of Ronald Reagan. It is laughable and delusional and a desperate plea to try to get voters to vote for your man.

The true winner come November 4, is the losing candidate... maybe that is why both seem so desperate to lose. I don't see either trying to win.

The biggest loser come Jan. 20th {or thereabouts} is this country when 1 of these men is sworn into office.

Read "Audacity of Hope"....it wont hurt that much.

Do you really think Reagan's testimony on commies in hollywood had an impact on the lives of most working Americans?


I am not trashing Kennedy (you're not denying the mafia connections or the adultery, are you?). I just dont idolize him. Few historians consider him a great president. But he generally does rank higher than Reagan.

And I am still trying to understand how the Democratic party has been "taken over by radicals."

You are basing your needs on a pipe dream. Nobody is gaffe free. No. Body.

I am sure if the heroes of the American past were subject to this level of scrutiny they would have been just as gaffe-laden. To think that Washington, Kennedy, Adams, Jefferson, et al. *never* stuttered, *never* misspoke is to view history through rose coloured glasses.

I find this whole conversation just a bit sad. It is one thing to ask that a candidate embody the values you have listed in the beginning of your quoted bit above but to ask for anyone to be *perfect* is a lost cause.

Time to wake up and face reality because what you are asking for is not possible.

I keep hearing all this talk about this election being about having to chose between the "lesser of two evils" or having to vote against one candidate rather than for the other candidate.

And to some extent, for some voters, that is absolutely the case. But the fact is, most Americans dont hate both candidates.

If you read deeper into most polls, that sentiment is limited...particularly among Obama supporters. Most are voting FOR him because they share his public policy vision, appreciate his leadership qualities and intelligence, believe he can be a consensus builder, or a combination of these and other factors.

It's funny... this is the first election in a while where there has been a clear feeling of voting *for* someone. I don't think I can remember ever having this feeling with the US presidential elections (not that I can vote).

(by the way: For clarity's sake I just changed the title of the thread name. I also moved it to the Election 2008 forum)

Its the first time for me since Clinton...I was for Bill Bradley in 2000 and Howard Dean in 2004. I didnt vote "for" either Gore or Kerry...I voted against Bush.

Wow, pan, I've got to say... for the first time on this thread, I think I really understand where you're coming from. Not agree necessarily, but understand.

You're an idealist. And one fly in the ointment sours the whole thing for you. The candidates aren't perfect, and so they're no good at all. You can't get behind either of the major parties because they have things going on you disagree with, and there are individuals you can't get on board with, so the whole thing's off.

In a way, it's a noble approach. I applaud your unwillingness to sacrifice your standards and ideals. And I can see how it would make real-life things like voting awfully difficult. I imagine life is fairly frustrating for you--I doubt things line up with your ideals all that often. Yeah, I've got a whole new insight into the conundrum that had you post this OP.

You don't vote for either of them, plain and simple.

of course people will give you the whole vote lesser evil schpeal, but the reality is then you voted for one of them.. DUH!

Before the elections... you go to work, pay your taxes, get involved in the community, enjoy your life.

after the elections, you go to work, pay your taxes, get invovled in the community, enjoy your life.

but why oh why would you vote for someone or something you don't believe in is beyond me.

I am in total agreement with Pan. This election is the worst I've seen since I first registered to vote 30 years ago. And that little opinion leads me to this question....

Why are so many thoroughly disgusted with how things have gone down and yet declare they will vote for one ass or the other? There are others running, you know.
Instead of bemoaning and crying in your beer and stating how this country is doomed one way or the other and then playing the game you so loudly protested, vote for the person who most closely resembles YOUR IDEALS.You can't go buying a week's worth of hamburger then complain there's nothing but hamburger to eat and expect people to sympathize.
I'd encourage everyone who can do so to vote, but NOT fall for the hype of two-party elitism.

/me shakes her head....

a. the royalist view of the presidency is derived from television's presentation of the office.
b. that view follows from the nature of the medium of television, not from the characteristics of the office of president
c. what it seems you want, pan, is a fully articulated television image of El Jeffe---since tv came to prominence as a medium, that process of Imagine Construction is a perk of being in office---no-one has that image before they get to office--reagan, whom i loathed then and loathe still, didn't--no-one has it. so you're asking that someone actually *be* the way that person will subsequently be constructed as being by the major opinion co-ordinating device in the united states.
but that's an image.
no-one is like that sort of image.

it's better to look at television images of power in the way one looks at socialist realist images of stalin.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...adimirskij.jpg

where is Stalin's other hand?

i think he only has one arm in that image.
the magically regenerating arm is but one of the many things you can watch in stalin images across time.
the hair (which strangely is hidden beneath the yachting-boy hat) is like a separate personality.
stalin's hair has its own biography.

I guess you dont accept the fact that most Obama supporters are voting for him because he most closely resembles THEIR IDEALS.

And there is nothing to support the position that most are voting for him for any other reason.

You dont like either major party candidate....thats fine...and many agree with you....but that doesnt change the fact that most are voting FOR either McCain or Obama.....not as a protest, not out of frustration that their choices are limited, but because they support one or the other of those two candidates.

Obama spoke in my home town yesterday morning. I didn't go (doors opened at 10, so to get in you'd have to be there at 6, and much as I enjoyed seeing him the time I did before, I just couldn't get up for the occasion). Some early-riser took this picture:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/...c75208c5_b.jpg

Look how grumpy he is in this picture! Do we really want a grumpy-puss like this running Our Country? I just can't get behind that! And McCain is obviously pure evil. OH WHAT TO DO!!!

I'd be grumpy too if some random guy was asking me to pull his finger...

That's precisely what I'm doing, ng. For the first time in my voting history, I am voting FOR someone, instead of against. And I'm pretty damn excited about that, and trying to get as many people to vote FOR Obama, along with me, as I can. So far, have persuaded my parents, aunt, uncle, and am working on some friends. :D
-----Added 28/9/2008 at 11 : 28 : 24-----
:lol:

I see someone with vision for the future who is looking over the crowd of fellow Americans and contemplating the responsibility he has and the faith people have in him and concentrating on policies he could help implement which will make our lives better, grow the economy and enhance our status in the world and make us safer.

Either that or he is just tired and grumpy that day.:)

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.

Nope, and I'm actually against eliminating the electoral college. We can fix the major issues in our elections by changing how we count the votes, while still maintaining the federal nature of the process through the electoral college. Not to mention the issues of voter efficacy and geographical influences. Look at any situation where the electoral college "got it wrong" and the root of the problem is the fact the states don't use a good voting method. If Florida, in 2000, used a Condorcet method, Gore would have easily won Florida's electoral votes.

I'm unclear on the benefit of that, though, Smeth. Seems to me a national election should be, well, national, and that federalism in this case is an antiquated formalism. Care to edumucate me on this?

Pan, I'm surprised that no one answered your question of what a community organizer does.
Community organizers get people from different, usually oppositional sections of communities and gets them to discuss their problems until they can figure out their common interests and what can be done to meet them.

So in Chicago, you have a pretty dire situation in that many traditional ways of controlling behavior have broken down.
The political system is notoriously riddled with corruption, legitimate job market is decimated, shops are boarded up, huge levels of gang violence, reduced funding for police, churches that can't keep their parishioners safe, fed, or clothed, addicts that can't get medical treatment, schools that can't teach effectively due to lack of funding, violence, and students who believe they have better chances running drugs than attending.

Then you take someone who believes he or she can make a difference.
That person has to figure out how to get police chiefs, politicians, health practitioners, gang leaders, church leaders, business leaders, union workers, and addicts to all sit down in one room and talk to one another about what they think their problems are and what kinds of solutions they can think of and then from there how to practically implement them.

A community organizer has to be able to talk to each of those groups and facilitate them talking TO (rather than AT) one another, and I would think that you more than most here would understand that a lot of people from those groups can smell an imposter from a mile away so it's not very likely you can do that for very long and maintain respect and authority among them without being genuine.

A lot of reasons for this, but Chicago has an incredibly rich history of community organization. Do you respect the work of people like Chavez or Jane Addams? I'm pretty sure you have a deep appreciation for Ralph Nader and MLK. They were all community organizers, Pan.

I do have a deep appreciation of what Nader once was.

And I appreciate what you are saying.... the true community organizers do great work. But there are others that allow power and greed to corrupt their message.

I just find it interesting people cannot point to what Obama did as a community organizer. Where are all the people his community organizing helped?

Instead of telling us McCain is more of the same..... why not hit us with ads of how Obama the community organizer helped someone better their life?

MLK could, Nader could, Chavez, and so on. Why doesn't Obama?

pan....read this profile in The Nation

Obama's Community Roots

Obama, only 24, struck board members as "awesome" and "extremely impressive," and they quickly hired him, at $13,000 a year, plus $2,000 for a car--a beat-up blue Honda Civic, which Obama drove for the next three years organizing more than twenty congregations to change their neighborhoods....

...He honed his talent for listening, learned pragmatic strategy, practiced bringing varied people together...

...virtually everyone described him in glowing terms, including dedicated, hard-working, dependable, intelligent, inspiring, a good listener, confident but self-effacing. They expressed admiration for him as an organizer who trained strong community leaders while keeping himself in the background and as a strategist who could turn general problems into specific, winnable issues....

...Obama's organizing history may give few clues about what policies he would pursue as President, but Obama the presidential candidate still shows his roots--a faith in ordinary citizens, a quest for common ground and a pragmatic inclination toward defining issues in winnable ways....

Although, I wont be surprised if you find a way to twist it....to somehow imply that he took that $13,000 /yr job as part of a long term plan to gain power through greed and corruption.

I don't know what kinds of ads are circulating in Ohio. I suspect that the ads over in California are different from the ones you are seeing. Over here, we are shown Obama standing among citizens and speaking about his own policies and beliefs, and then ending with him personally approving the message. The only ads I've seen about McCain are on Fox News or MSNBC where they are followed with political commentary. They are shown within the context of hourly news shows, not as paid for advertisements.

I suspect that over in Ohio you are receiving them as ads themselves (perhaps in addition to the news clips commenting about them). Maybe this is done to target specific demographics, and perhaps due to it being a swing state, but over in metro areas and probably even more likely in Chicago where people have knowledge of specific groups of people, the kinds of ads you are curious about seem to be running. Of course, this was 20 years ago so I'm not sure where the specific people he worked with are located.

I'm not voting against McCain, however, so ads about him just roll of my back like water off a duck. I don't pay attention to them because he's not relevant to who I want representing me. I would have voted Green party if not for Obama.

Ye of little faith.

I appreciate that reply. It is nice to see what he did do. IF he would capitalize on his past more instead of letting associations be brought more to the surface, maybe it'd benefit him.

To me right now, it's hard to know what to believe anymore.... and I am past the point of caring. I know who I am voting for and why and the cons in doing so.... but this election is definitely not a choice of 2 great leaders, it is more likely to go down as one of the worst {and not necessarily by the winner's making}. But time and history will tell.

I do wish the winner luck and will stand behind the man elected as President and respect him as much as I can.