<p>You know, I was thinking about this today. I stopped at Costco to fill up my car and got into an interesting discussion with the attendant there. I’d been talking to my D in New York when I pulled up, and she asked me what gas was costing at home, and about flipped when I told her (Illinois has some of the highest gas prices in the country). So this guy overheard me and we started talking about gas prices. While I do not want to turn this thread into a political debate on solutions to lowering gas prices, we both agreed (without even sharing which candidate we supported) that we wanted to know how the candidates were going to address this. We didn’t want to hear anymore about who accused who of what, who misspoke, who ‘flip-flopped’, who did or did not do something twenty years ago. We want to know how each candidate will address our oil and gas production and prices.</p>
<p>So that was my conversation with the Costco gas attendant today I truly felt inspired by the fact that two complete strangers could talk issues without dissing any candidates.</p>
<p>Xiggi - you know I respect you as an individual, no matter how much I bash your opinions - but I include you in the group who can’t get past a “visceral” response to some candidates. They’re all politicians; consider that good or bad as you wish, but the process we have created pretty much eliminates saints as viable candidates. </p>
<p>Sanjenferrer - call me a “prestige whore” if you like, but President of Harvard Law Review impresses me -and I also generally find that the people who are smartest are those who don’t seem to need to let me know how smart they are. That’s my impression of Obama. Not that Clinton is a slacker in the intelligence area - but my take is Obama “by a nose.”</p>
<p>I do think Clinton is a better debater and she sure has her facts memorized. I was in the locker room at the Y with a bunch of ladies about 20 years older than me. It was interesting to hear how much they admired Clinton. They see her as spunky, funny and admire her willingness to elbow back and play dirty pool. The women my age are swooning over Obama. The men seem to be evenly divided between those that like Obama, those that like McCain, and those who don’t like any of em.</p>
<p>I too wish they’d get back to talking more about the issues. I notice that Clinton and Obama have taken very different positions on a gas tax vacation.</p>
<p>Many of you know whom you will vote for, and no amount of evangelism (or facts) will change your minds. I don’t know, and am still trying to figure out if I can stand any of the three, or if I will go bury my head in the sand somewhere. I read the threads because I am genuinely interested in the pros and cons. (I don’t post; I know better.) But I admit, I have learned how certain people shoot, and I tend to skip their posts - read one, read 'em all. Once the thread degenerates into mudslinging, I don’t read it anymore. But I can usually at least get through most of the first page.</p>
<p>The reason I read the threads is that this is one of the few places on the Internet where there are articulate folk on all sides. I don’t find the sites dedicated to one candidate or one party all that helpful. </p>
<p>It’s kinda like looking for colleges. Once I’m an alum, I only want to hear what a good choice I made, and how well I spent my money. But while I’m still looking, I’d like to know both the strengths and the weaknesses of my choices, so I can make an informed and thoughtful decision.</p>
<p>I talked to my son, a Republican who has expressed doubts about Obama, and who is currently a student in Indiana. He was on his way to hear Obama speak. He said his roommate, a Republican who doesn’t like Clinton or Obama much, had gone to hear Clinton and was also going to hear Obama. I found it refreshing that these young men were open-minded enough to be willing to give someone a chance, regardless of their initial feelings toward them. </p>
<p>It may be necessary to discuss negatives about candidates to some degree, but I would love to have an election in which we can spend more time discussing which candidate is the best, rather than which is the worst.</p>
<p>I think the major problem with discussing the issues (at least on the Democratic side) is that there is so little substantive difference that the intangible personal characteristics of each candidate will probably end up having so much more bearing on the direction of their administration, and so those are what we talk about.</p>
<p>Can’t say it makes for pleasant discussion, but it probably is germane.</p>
<p>Kluge, I’ll return the compliment about the respect. As far as the visceral reactions, I would beg to differ about my posts regarding this last election, but that is another story. At least, I know that what I wrote lately is exactly the same I wrote at any time during the past 60 months. Visceral reactions do not tend to be long-lived. </p>
<p>For what it is worth, I could change the “rules of engagement” you proposed but change the identities of Clinton, Obama, and McCain with … Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, and the current Prez George Bush. </p>
<p>I’ll start with the same. People! Ronald Reagan was the last Prez who was worthy of the title. Dick Cheney is smart as a whip. George Bush has an uncanny courage and vision. </p>
<p>I think the first comment might fly, the second I agree with 100%, and the third would have been passable at the beginning of Bush’s tenure, but I’m not sure the empirical results are bearing it out. ;)</p>
<p>That’s all I’ve ever really said about the Bush admin. though: that Bush surrounded himself with a bunch of really intelligent people with their own agendas, and by virtue of the asymmetry of capability between himself and his advisers has gradually lost control (in my opinion). Your opinion may differ.</p>
<p>I don’t consider Bush evil in any way, just not capable enough to manage his staff. Can’t speak for anyone else, though - there’s certainly enough people who would love to burn him in effigy here, and everywhere else.</p>
<p>There are some very important management issues to be learned from the structural failure of the Bush administration.</p>
<p>For example, I want a President who knows how the government works so that he or she won’t get bamboozled or hoodwinked by a VP or Sec. of Defense trying to do the okie-doke.</p>
<p>I agree with you kluge. I do read the threads and post on them because I am interested in politics. I try to express my opinion respectfully. I also like all three candidates. Now if one of the candidates was Dick Cheney, I’d probably be more vitriolic :-)</p>
<p>I would be interested in a political thread that is clearly marked as “no vitriol zone”, where we all agree to discuss the election as we would college basketball. I mean we can pull for our ‘side’, make predictions, have a pool, etc, but always keep it civil and somewhat impersonal.</p>
<p>kluge,
It looks like many in the Democratic party are getting tired of the “nastiness”.</p>
<p>Today’s AP: "May 1, 7:51 AM (ET)</p>
<p>By NEDRA PICKLER </p>
<p>WASHINGTON (AP) - A leader of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton has switched his allegiance to Barack Obama and is encouraging fellow Democrats to “heal the rift in our party” and unite behind the Illinois senator.</p>
<p>Joe Andrew, who was Democratic National Committee chairman from 1999-2001, planned a news conference Thursday in his hometown of Indianapolis to urge other Hoosiers to support Obama in Tuesday’s primary, perhaps the most important contest left in the White House race. He also has written a lengthy letter explaining his decision that he plans to send to other superdelegates.</p>
<p>“I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it’s now bad for the Democratic Party,” Andrew said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press."</p>
<p>After a while, one can identify the posters whose only true talent is name-calling, whose posts are dependably destructive and otherwise empty. The “ignore” list suffices.</p>
<p>Doctormom–how is it controlling? Kluge can’t *make *anyone change their tone. It’s a request for civility. Sometimes when people ask us to rise to the occasion, and rethink our approach, we do. At least, I find that true for myself.</p>
<p>garland, I agree. People can discuss and disagree with civility.</p>
<p>What I have found on many of the political threads is that some individuals are not at all interested in an actual discussion of an issue, or even of a candidate. They are simply interested in interjecting the same old negative comments in post after post after post. The thread may only be tangentially related to their usual rant but they join in anyway with the same old stuff. It has happened here in this thread, for heaven’s sake. Even if we all can identify posters whose only talent is name-calling, as vossron says, it diminishes the discussion. Many of us are very supportive of a particular candidate and yet don’t feel the need to continually bash the opponents. </p>
<p>I’ve avoided a lot of the political threads lately, in addition to a lot of the political news in other media, because, frankly, I’m at a point where I’m frustrated, worn out, and sick of the entire process. It goes on for far too long. Sometimes I think that the system here in Canada is greatly preferable. When an election is called, there’s a period of about 5-6 weeks to campaign and that’s it. A two year campaign is ridiculous, for the candidates, for the public, and for the insane amount of money which is spent.</p>
<p>alwaysamom: I agree, and think most people are also worn out and sick and tired of the whole process. </p>
<p>This may eventually be remembered as the year when record numbers of Americans got interested in politics, and record numbers lost all interest in politics.</p>
<p>But Kluge, Clinton was valedictorian of her undergraduate class and went onto Yale Law School. President of Harvard Law Review is impressive too, but I’m saying these credentials are not foolproof ways of judging intelligence. We’re merely speculating here. We should judge the product instead, I think. Based on public appearances, Clinton is by far the smarter one. She’s possibly one of the smartest candidates to ever run for president. It’s also a little hypocritical that you’re deriding Clinton for making her smarts known when you yourself are saying you’re tired of negatively criticizing candidates. I think it’s perfectly fine that she’s making her smarts known, especially since that’s an edge she has.</p>
<p>“You learn more by reading what you don’t like.”</p>
<p>That is SO true. How can anyone make an informed decision if all they do is talk to or listen to people who think just like them? Some of my relatives get all their info from National Review Online and Fox (or stuff just like that). Then they just pass it around to each other and recycle it. If you try and interject a different perspective, they go postal.</p>
<p>It’s impt to look at a wide variety of sources of information and try to listen to other’s opinions, if well reasoned and civilly expressed. It’s not fair to call someone hypocritical just cause they have a different viewpoint. We can all learn from each other, and who knows, even the most seemingly well entrenched view may modify itself.</p>
<p>fwiw - I’m pretty sure Hillary was NOT the valedictorian of her college class, altho’ she did give a graduation speech, it was not as valedictorian. This is often confused in the media.</p>
<p>On a positive note, Hillary was endorsed by Mike Easley, the governor of North Carolina, and while I wasn’t able to see it, NPR gave a good review of her time on O’Reilly last night, and the NPR guys had an interesting discussion of democrats being interviewed on Fox. Anyway, they said she handled herself well.</p>
I truly felt inspired by the fact that two complete strangers could talk issues without dissing any candidates.</p>