<p>I think the reason we end up with subpar Presidential candidates is because we do expect them to be almost non-human (perfect) in their actions, thoughts and words. I actually would like to see a President tell them to turn off the teleprompter in the middle of speech and go ad-lib…tell the truth or be heartfelt. They aren’t allowed to have a sense of humor because it might hack someone, somewhere off… I actually want someone who will make some mistakes and be man enough to admit them and move on. The whole Clinton-Lewinski thing would have gone away had he stepped up immediately and said “Yes, I’m a horny guy and I have a heartless b***h for a wife. I know it was wrong but it was too tempting…I’m sorry”. This country actually loves for people to admit their mistakes. We have a very short memory.</p>
<p>Speaking of short all this talk about “typical white woman” jogged my memory and caused me to think of a phrase I use quite often that got a candidate in some hot water. “You people”… Remember when Perot used that in front of the NAACP and he was called racist for using that phrase?</p>
<p>The point is that even the most innoccuous phrases get you in trouble if you say them to the wrong group…even if you said nothing wrong. Obama is getting shafted on his comment the way Perot did. WHO CARES! I’m not an Obama supporter but can we worry about something more meaningful?</p>
<p>You’re right, pmrlcomm. We actually create “subpar” candidates through our unrealistic expectations. It doesn’t matter who runs for higher office–we’ll inevitably find new and creative ways to yank them off their pedestals, strip them of their appeal, turn them into double-speaking hypocrites, and crucify them with their own words. It happens every single campaign and it’s happening now.</p>
<p>“Obama may well be a good guy who’s politically to the left of you. Either that, or he’s a racist granny-hater. Take your pick!”</p>
<p>I have!</p>
<p>“And McCain thought through his “Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran” comment? That wasn’t even close to being funny. Or his Chelsea Clinton joke? I’ll bet if he could put that one back in the can, he would in a heartbeat.”</p>
<p>Personally, I have not decided to vote for McCain, either. But I think he holds himself up as being a lot less self-righteous than Obama. </p>
<p>Regardless, neither of them are great presidential candidates. I just think that Obama is the worst Democratic candidate for a long time. Even Dukakis looked better than him. Obama ranks about where Kerry did, in my opinion, except not having the war experience, which was to Kerry’s credit, despite what the Swift boat people said.</p>
<p>On the other hand, we have McCain’s RECORD of many years to examine in order to surmise what he’ll do. </p>
<p>He has a HISTORY of:</p>
<ul>
<li>Taking modrate stances on issues when it best serves the country.</li>
<li>Putting the objective of “getting something accomplished” ahead of partisanship or ideology (or personal gain).</li>
<li>Working WITH Democrats.</li>
<li>Fighting wasteful spending.</li>
<li>Exposing corruption among fellow politicians.</li>
<li>Standing up against Bush & Rumsfeld.</li>
<li>Counselling Reagan not to send the Marines in Beirut (many were later killed as they slept).</li>
<li>Tackling the tough issue of Immigration.</li>
<li>Attemptimg to re-vamp corrupt & broken systems in gov’t ( Campaign Finance).</li>
<li>Putting his life at risk for his country.</li>
<li>Suffering (by choice) for years as a POW rather than take freedom out-of-turn (leadership, courage & character as well as concern for morale & well-being of others before himself).</li>
<li>Devoting his entire life to service of his country.</li>
<li>Forging Compromise between conflicting factions if gov’t ( Gang of 14).</li>
<li>Seeking input from others to make good judgements (Going to Iraq & really listening to the military leaders there).</li>
<li>Not parading his children around for political gain.</li>
<li>Caring for children who aren’t his own (several adoptions).</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ul>
<p>Ok - so the ones about “children” don’t necessarily have anything to do w/ gov’t, but they do show that he is a compassionate person who doesn’t do things just for political reasons & they do demonstrate aspects of his character (selflessness).</p>
<p>OK, bz. You’ve make a good argument for McCain’s strengths–something that holds much more weight with me than someone who can only drag his rival through the mud. Excellent post.</p>
<p>As for Obama’s self-righteousness, I just don’t see it. As I’ve said before, our perceptions are no doubt colored by our political leanings. While you see a self-righteous guy with no experience, I see a strong, articulate, inspiring, exciting potential leader of the free world.</p>
<p>Is one of the criteria for running for the highest office in the land to have big ears? :)</p>
<p>I can’t imagine how tough it must be to have everything we say analyzed and critiqued. That said, the candidates’ staff would likely drill them on how not to say things that sound pejorative. The goal is to win over voters, not to p-i-s-s them off. I am not a person who is going to change my vote based on one stupid thing that a person says. Better to look at the big picture. Personally, I think everyone overreacted to Howard Dean’s “yee-hah!” several years ago. I think he had many very good qualities, and am sorry that one exclamation became his swan song.</p>
<p>Howard Dean’s “yee-hah!” was really unfair. ABC later admitted that they broadcast using only the microphone attached to Dean’s mouth (practically). If the other microphones had also been turned on for the telecast, they would have picked up the cacophonous noise surrounding Dean. The room was jammed full of people who were cheering, screaming, and stomping. He literally had to yell to be heard over the din. But what the television audience appeared to see and hear was a lunatic, ranting alone on a stage. Ah, the power of modern technology!</p>
<p>Doesn’t matter, the point was that though we might whine about what Obama did, we would and actually do the same thing, and we do it without malice. This should therefore cause us not to get our panties in a bunch in some knee-jerk, near pathological response whenever it occurs in a political candidate. There have been plenty of downright underhanded words and tactic used in these campaigns that actually warrant anger. This use of the word “typical” here simply does not rise to that level, and quite frankly I am baffled that you are acting so weird about it.</p>
<p>I mean, if you dislike that he used the word, then fine. Don’t vote for him. Simple as that. But my goodness, casting all these aspersions on the man’s character because of it is just very weird.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. Well great. So now we know. I think Obama is a lot more introspective than McCain, a lot smarter, a lot less vicious, that, unlike McCain his character would never permit him to call his own wife a [word removed]. As for his changes in policy, well, sometimes when you make a stance and get more information, you actually need to make a change in policy. So I never really fault any politician for doing this. I fault them when they get more information, and then ignore it, failing to make changes, and end up spending trillions of dollars and wasting thousands of human lives fighting a war that was dumb to begin with, a war that McCain even now defends! I hope you get McCain as your president because you deserve him.</p>
<p>Hey, McCain changes policy about as much as any other. He by no means is any more consistent than anyone else. I heard with my own ears the guy claiming that he expects America will need to be in Iraq for at least a hundred years. He said this not as a criticism, but as a leader. Now he claims he meant we will need to have a “presence” in Iraq for a hundred years, as we do in Japan, Germany and elsewhere. Nevermind the total nonsense of the comparison, the lack of consistency here is at least as bad as anything Obama has demonstrated. Now he claims we can be out in something like 18 months. We are talking changes in this case, and with little new information. The guy is just lying, making stuff up to appeal to voters.</p>
<p>McCain also pushed hard for a citizenship pathway for illegal immigrants. But now that is no where on his agenda. Indeed, he is hot to build a wall against illegals because he knows if he doesn’t, his own party will trash him. So much for the man’s principles. He is a politician, just like other politicians. He wants to win, so expedience rules the day. I know Obama’s being black perhaps makes him seem awful dodgy to a great many Americans, but I suspect he isn’t the demon you imply he is, at least no more than your homeboy, John McCain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, did you trust George Bush? Do you trust John McCain? Please. These guys are politicians who are after your vote. Whining against Obama as if he is especially unworthy of trust while apparently overlooking McCain’s and Bush’s proven lack of trustworthiness is just plain weird. I mean, in another post you claim Obama hasn’t yet done anything, and yet here you are just wailing away about how untrustworthy he is. Bush and McCain have both done a lot, including supporting the trillion dollar war, supporting the deaths of thousands of Americans for a cause that is as obviously futile as rocks trying to fly. And yet they have your trust? You trust them more than you trust Obama?</p>
<p>Please. I do not think all of the weird fire and thunder against Obama you are unleashing here has anything at all to do with the guy’s character. You really haven’t enough information about Obama to be making so many impassioned and vicious assessments of the guy.</p>
<p>I agree with that. If Obama had said, “like many white people of her generation,” it probably would not have caused the same flap.
Similarly, if Phil Gramm had said, “I don’t think we’re in a recession at all. While there are economic problems, I think people have an overly negative attitude about where our economy is going.” --he probably wouldn’t be under the bus.</p>
<p>Maybe we should start a list of “risky, potentially inflammatory words or phrases that political candidates should avoid” . I would think that this kind of list probably already exists, and that candidates should memorize it. It reminds me of that very funny “word association job interview” bit that the late Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase did on Saturday Night Live many years ago. Anyone see that? I don’t remember all the words, but it ended with “honkey” and “dead honkey”. It was hysterical. I am so glad we can sometimes laugh at ourselves.</p>
<p>We are not allowed to post links to youtube or videos. I am trying to post this without it being a direct link. It is the clip of that SNL bit. Chevy Chase is interviewing Richard Pryor for a janitorial job. It is very funny. Go to the following: Chevy Chase Interviews Richard Pryor for Janitorial Job</p>
<p>I think it was clear to most people who didn’t already have their minds made up about the man. Wait a minute…
Did I say, “most”? I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to generalize. I meant, that the negative reaction to his use of the word “typical” was common to a lot of individuals who had already formed a deep dislike for the man, individuals who, for the most part, already had their mind made up. There. Is that PC enough for you?
…and here I though only liberals were obsessed with political correctness…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty obvious from the above quote that you didn’t really read Drosselmeirer’s post with a view toward understanding what he was trying to say. In many more and words, and in much more detail, he was essentially saying exactly what you were saying:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you apparently were so fixated upon denying the very possibility that the man’s race might have had anything at all to do with adding to the poor woman’s fears, that you didn’t listen with an open heart. You moved immediately to negate Drosselmeirer, not even acknowledging that you agreed with anything he’d observed about situations such as this. For example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do I know that you actually agree with this assessment? Because, in the next post, you would most surly would point out to me that the poor woman had every reasonable right to be nervous around the man, because, after all, aren’t the news reports full of stories of violent black men? And whose fault is that? She was a vulnerable woman alone on the street with a hugh black man following her. She would be stupid not to consider that she might possibly be in danger.</p>
<p>You know why I know that Drosselmeir would agree with that sentiment? Because, he as much as said so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Furthermore, he said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course the woman’s reaction was “prejudiced”—NOT racist on her part. Prejudice in this instance was “pre-judgement” based on all her available information at that moment. Information culled from knowledge gathered during all her world experiences, both direct and indirect. That you were unwilling to acknowledge that there was any truth at all in Drosselmeirer’s words shows just how closed you were to any real dialog on the subject, that you would brook no quarter.</p>