General Election 2008 Talkback (Please Read Rules Before Posting!)

[The Landstander]

And since you're posting on an internet forum, you might be interested in this: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

Though not the ultimate reason to vote, I want to agree this is a good position to have and both understanding and supporting net neutrality is refreshing to see.

[ichormosquito]

Though not the ultimate reason to vote, I want to agree this is a good position to have and both understanding and supporting net neutrality is refreshing to see.

It helps that Obama's technology policy is co-written by Lawrence Lessig.

[wonderfly]

Well, that's bupkis. From his policy page:

Though McCain as "maverick" might be appealing, when choosing a president, you need to heavily weigh the candidate's party affiliation. One of the president's greatest powers is the power of appointment, whether to the Supreme Court or the FCC. As a Republican, his pool of choices for these positions is tarred by the influence of Far Right Christianity and Reagan fetishizing, pro-free market ideologues. You need only look at McCain's flip flop on torture or the Bush tax cuts to witness the party's winning out over the man.

And since you're posting on an internet forum, you might be interested in this: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

McCain has shown little knowledge or enthusiasm about the internet, which is the defining medium for communication, commerce, and entertainment of our time. He has, on the other hand, shown a curious enthusiasm for telecom lobbyists.

I thought for a second there you were clarifying McCain's position on abortion out of a sense of agreement with his views. And then I got to to the last half of your post...

I know about the "flip flop" on the Bush tax cuts, but when has the guy done a "flip flop" on torture? To my knowledge, he's always maintained the he's against "torture", (or what he percieves as torture), which I find annoying: it comes across as only HE knows the right choices when it comes time to make a tough call concerning terrorists, and only HE knows how far we should go. My position has always been, "You're not in White House you sanctimonious know-it-all, let George Bush fight the War on Terror and don't second guess him, until you sit in the White House and have to make the same calls." But that's one of the few instances of me not liking McCain.

[The Landstander]

The flip flop was on a bill which banned waterboarding.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/wa...3cnd-cong.html

Basically he talked a lot about banning torture (I liked him for it) but when push came to shove he voted against banning it. I suppose if one doesn't mind torture (or can somehow consider waterboarding not torture) it doesn't matter, but it's certainly a flip.

[Scirel]

Well, that's bupkis. From his policy page:

Though McCain as "maverick" might be appealing, when choosing a president, you need to heavily weigh the candidate's party affiliation. One of the president's greatest powers is the power of appointment, whether to the Supreme Court or the FCC. As a Republican, his pool of choices for these positions is tarred by the influence of Far Right Christianity and Reagan fetishizing, pro-free market ideologues. You need only look at McCain's flip flop on torture or the Bush tax cuts to witness the party's winning out over the man.

And since you're posting on an internet forum, you might be interested in this: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

McCain has shown little knowledge or enthusiasm about the internet, which is the defining medium for communication, commerce, and entertainment of our time. He has, on the other hand, shown a curious enthusiasm for telecom lobbyists.

O.o;; damn, Wikipedia needs to update their page on Mccain. I assume he changed his mind on the issue to appeal to Social conservatives?

[Lord Dalek]

O.o;; damn, Wikipedia needs to update their page on Mccain. I assume he changed his mind on the issue to appeal to Social conservatives?

Flipflops, thy name is McCain.

[Ishtar]

Flipflops, thy name is McCain.

To quote McCain himself, "That's not change we can believe in".

[peacebyanymeans]

To quote McCain himself, "That's not change we can believe in".

You forgot the awkward smile and laugh, while clearly glancing at a teleprompter.

[ichormosquito]

You forgot the awkward smile and laugh, while clearly glancing at a teleprompter.

That cringe-worthy performance probably locked in Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal for VP.

[The Avatar]

Looking at that speech, I'm really baffled how any campaign strategist could think that's a good idea. I think that, besides being a plain bad speech, it actually might have been one of the worst planned speeches I've ever seen. And that's coming from 8 years of listening to Bush barely being able to say a complete sentence without screwing it up. I mean, besides being awfully obnoxious to take the spotlight in what should be Obama's night (I don't recall any Democrats making speeches criticizing him on the night he wrapped up the Republican nomination in March), anyone could have seem his speech would be be paired against Obama speech accepting the nomination, and would ultimately come up short. Everyone knows Obama's a phenominal speaker, and John McCain has never been able to even come close to matching that. And everyone knows that Obama draws huge crowds to his speeches (and on a night like this the number of people would definitely be much higher than normal), and John McCain also never comes even close to matching those crowds. And yet he still chose to make the speech, when he easily could have seem it would look awful.

And that's not even accounting how his speech actually was. First, there was that awful eyesore of a background (seriously lime green?) Second, McCain looked awful in that speech. His skin looked kind of sickly, his smile looked awful, his teeth looked yellow, and his makeup was kind of gaudy. Third, the crowd looked like it had at most 300, while Obama's speech had a turnout way into the thousands. Plus, coping Obama slogan (A leader we can believe in? Did he even try to hid it?) I know this is just superficialities, but let's face it, he's on television. Superficialities matter. And besides, the content of the speech was incredibly uninspiring. When the best part of your speech is some stale attempt at humor ("That's not change you can believe in". You could hear how forced that laughter was), your in trouble. Looking at that two speeches, I was reminded of the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 (sure it happened way before I was born, but I still can talk about it as if I was there, godammit!). Kennedy was looking great and got a spot on performance, while Nixon looking gruff and uneasy, completely not at all accustomed to television.

There's been talk by some Obama supporters that McCain won't stand a chance after Obama crushes him in the debates, and looking at this, it would look like Obama's got it in the bag. But judging by the fact George W. Bush is currently serving out his second term, I don't take anything for granted. I still think Obama and his supporters are going to have to work to get him elected. Plus, Obama may be great at speeches, but his performances at the debates have been sort of uneven. Speeches need you to think in paragraphs, while debate force you to think in sound bites. And many people who are great at one find themselves lost when trying to do the other one. In some of the debates, Obama seemed halting and unsure (although he did get better in time). Then again, Kerry got a boost in the polls after his first debate with Kerry and he wasn't a really great debater (or a speech writer for that matter). He won simply because Bush was a horrible debater (look up "You Forgot Poland" from a while back.). I guess only time will tell.

[Don_East]

Obama does not have this in the bag. It's only June, there's gonna be a long summer going into fall. And I'm convinced that more Reverend Wright level stuff will come out to damage the canidate. And it might happen soon if that video of his wife saying "whitey" is real. I like to see how he can put that into a better light.

Hilary as the VP is a double-edge sword, if he does pick her, there's a slight chance of him alienating the followers who were believing in the message of "New Politics". And if he doesn't, there's a good chance the Hilary supports will go to McCain just to make sure Hilary gets a shot in 2012.

And there's the celebrity/media support, that stuff is a bupkis. Back in 2004, there was a movie, rock concert, and celebrities popping out of the wood work for John Kerry and look what happened. Hell, Obama lost the primary where Hollywood is located.

[ichormosquito]

Obama does not have this in the bag. It's only June, there's gonna be a long summer going into fall. And I'm convinced that more Reverend Wright level stuff will come out to damage the canidate. And it might happen soon if that video of his wife saying "whitey" is real. I like to see how he can put that into a better light.

That tape is a myth.

[GWOtaku]

O.o;; damn, Wikipedia needs to update their page on Mccain. I assume he changed his mind on the issue to appeal to Social conservatives?

I'm not sure where people get this from. McCain has had a mostly pro-life voting record throughout his Senate career, and there isn't much new about his position on the matter.

[Beat]

Most of his issues (tax cuts) have fallen in line with the Bush administration however.

[The Avatar]

Obama does not have this in the bag. It's only June, there's gonna be a long summer going into fall. And I'm convinced that more Reverend Wright level stuff will come out to damage the canidate. And it might happen soon if that video of his wife saying "whitey" is real. I like to see how he can put that into a better light.

Hilary as the VP is a double-edge sword, if he does pick her, there's a slight chance of him alienating the followers who were believing in the message of "New Politics". And if he doesn't, there's a good chance the Hilary supports will go to McCain just to make sure Hilary gets a shot in 2012.

And there's the celebrity/media support, that stuff is a bupkis. Back in 2004, there was a movie, rock concert, and celebrities popping out of the wood work for John Kerry and look what happened. Hell, Obama lost the primary where Hollywood is located.

I know he still doesn't have it in the bag. That's what I was saying. That his supporters are still going to have to work hard. I was saying that some thought he had it in the bag. But that tape you're talking about seems like a myth.

For him to win, it's not enough for Hillary to simply give a speech endorsing Obama, even though it was a good endorsement. She needs to campaign with him. Aggressively. That might be the only way that she can bring that number of her supporters that will not vote or support McCain down. Another way is to, like I said, point out McCain's horrible record on women's rights (look here to see what I mean). He should also try and actually see why many of her supporters are so angry. There's a strong perception that her campaign was destroyed because of sexism, particularly in the media. And looking at this video it's hard to argue that there was sexism in the media. He should try to sympathize with that and maybe give sort of the same kind of speech he gave on race, but on sexism.

Reverend Wright can't really hurt him much more. He's already left the church and severed his ties with Wright. It was probably better for him for this stuff to come up in March and April than in October, when it could have had a much more severe impact.

And about what you said about Kerry, I'm not really sure that Kerry was even a good candidate. On paper, he may seem like a good candidate. A decorated war hero (especially considering Bush's record) a solid record in politics, but when he's an actual candidate, he comes off as uncharismatic and slow to respond to attacks (i.e. Swiftboating), which could have cost him the election. Someone like Howard Dean might have been a riskier choice, but he seems like he's more charismatic, and that he'd be able to relate to voters in a way that Kerry couldn't. Same thing with Edwards. Obama is a much better candidate than Kerry was. He's more charismatic than Kerry ever was, and Obama seems like he can respond to attacks much better than Kerry could (all of the things that McCain started to throw at him)

And I agree. The Hollywood support doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Most of the people in Hollywood are liberal anyway, so they come out to support the Democratic nominee in every election.

[peacebyanymeans]

And it might happen soon if that video of his wife saying "whitey" is real. I like to see how he can put that into a better light.

"Why'd he."

She was referring to Bush.

[Lord Dalek]

"Why'd he."

She was referring to Bush.

The tape doesn't even exist to begin with (outside of the novel the originator of this smear derived it from) so don't complicate things.

[peacebyanymeans]

The tape doesn't even exist to begin with (outside of the novel the originator of this smear derived it from) so don't complicate things.

Oh really? Hmm... I read somewhere that it was a misinterpretation. My bad.

[wonderfly]

Another way is to, like I said, point out McCain's horrible record on women's rights (look here to see what I mean).

I thought I was going to click on that link and read somebody claiming that John McCain wants all women to stay in the kitchen, or something. But instead I find out he's against abortion. Oh yeah, because being against abortion means being against women's rights...

[Jowy Blight]

Another Obama supporter here.

I'm surprised that nobody in the media has brought up the Keating Five. I would think that it would be one of the first things to come up with McCain being the Republican nominee and all.