<p>ph - I think you underestimate the opposition. I know there are people out there who oppose Obama for race reasons, but I don’t think that’s a very large number. I really believe that, if he were to be elected, the nature of his criticisms would be based on policy, not his race.</p>
<p>No matter what polls might indicate, I’d bet that there are more people supporting Obama based on race than opposing him based on race.</p>
<p>I just really do not believe there are that many people for whom an AfAm POTUS is that objectionable - a liberal? yes. A novice? yes. But not AfAm.</p>
<p>Poetsheart -
As you know, I really, really hope Obama is not elected. But if he is, I believe from what I have seen that he will bring in an era which is more respectful. First of all, I think both sides (liberal and conservative) and exhausted. Additionally, he has what it takes to lead us in the direction of a more conciliatory tone.</p>
<p>As a conservative with a libertarian bent myself, I think I have two Democrats from which to choose this election season. Or, as you so aptly observed, a liberal and a Socialist.</p>
<p>Spideygirl - Obama is far from being a socialist. There are many issues about which Obama would not even pass the “liberal” muster - death penalty and gun control are just two. McCain at one point had some passive/aggressive liberal leanings but seems to have moved away from those.</p>
<p>tega - I guess the answer to that depends on the individual definition of “liberal.” My idea of gun control is very different from Obama’s so, in my mind, he is more middle of the road on that issue. He believes in some restrictions but he also said he believes that the 2nd Amendment supports the individual right to bear arms. I don’t believe that so, to me, he is not particularly liberal on that front. To others, he’s a liberal on that issue and I’m a radical. He certainly hasn’t made gun control one of his campaign issues and, since what he believes has now been rendered moot by the Supreme Court, I doubt we will hear much from either candidate.</p>
<p>Obama has tried to have it both ways re: gun control. From the Chicago Tribune, “In 1999, before he ran for the U.S. Senate, he favored a ban on gun stores within five miles of a school or park.” This restriction would have made it impossible to sell guns ANYWHERE.</p>
<p>Obama’s new proposal, though, includes two significant reversals of positions he has taken in the past: He had steadfastly fought the idea of limited new offshore drilling and was against tapping the nation’s emergency oil stockpile to relieve pump prices that have stubbornly hovered around $4 a gallon.</p>
<p>Not only did Obama push for drawing from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, he also reiterated his changing position on offshore drilling first revealed last Friday suggesting that he could live with it if done in an environmentally sound way and as part of a bipartisan energy compromise.</p>
<p>Spidey and Hard_Knocks–Can y’all explain to this simple-minded Kentucky girl how John McCain is a liberal? Not by my definition, he ain’t.</p>
<p>Spidey–You are SO right about the exhaustion factor setting in. I’m worn out from listening to how unbelievably reprehensible both Obama and McCain are. You know I’m an Obama supporter, but last night I sat down and tried to think about McCain in a positive light, since he may well be our next prez. I appreciate the fact that finds the torture techniques used at Guantanamo repugnant–as any decent human being would. … He condemned the flying of a confederate flag over the South Carolina statehouse in 2000. … He can laugh at himself, as he’s shown repeatedly on SNL and the Daily Show. … He had the courage to lay his life on the line for the country, rather than opt out of combat with phoney-baloney deferments. … He has occasionally crossed the political aisle to work cooperatively on important, beneficial legislation. … Admirable … but does this make him “liberal?”</p>
<p>McCain changed his position on offshore drilling this past June. He had always been against it before, just like Obama. Both of these guys are able to compromise a bit to get things done. Obama isn’t “for” offshore drilling, but is willing to have it on the table as part of an energy policy. McCain’s position is similar.<br>
The very week that McCain said he’d consider offshore drilling, after being against it for many years, his campaign saw a large increase in oil company financial support. I haven’t heard if Obama’s campaign received a similar infusion.</p>
<p>But, he voted “present” on a bill that would have prohibited strip clubs and adult book stores within 1 mile of schools. In trying to explain why he ducked this vote earlier this year, he cited consitutional “concerns” about the state ursurping local zoning. I guess those local zoning concerns didn’t apply to his consistently inconsistent logic on guns. The guy is a serial liar.</p>
<p>Hindoo - I’m proud of you!! Your post #791 was wonderful. Is it possible you’re finally starting to warm up to the idea of McCain as POTUS?</p>
<p>Anyway, I think you’ve taken a really great first step in opening up your mind toward accepting McCain as a great candidate. Can’t be too long now until you’re supporting the RIGHT guy! :)</p>
<p>I loved Barack Hussein Obama’s ad today attacking McCain for being in pocket of big oil. Of course, the irony is that both McCain and Clinton voted againt the 2005 Cheney Energy Bill because it was loaded down with tax giveaways to big energy. The One voted for it, presumably at the bidding of his major backer Exelon.</p>
<p>Hi Hindoo, Just as Obama has repackaged himself to appeal to mainstream voters, McCain has also done so to appeal to voters to his right. McCain has long sided with the Left, from gay marriage to abortion to immigration to taxes to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.</p>
<p>McCain has certainly changed his mind on abortion. I’m telling you, we’ve got two guys running for president who flip-flop more than a beached fish. … You’re right about the re-packaging of both candidates. These days, I’m betting any successful candidate has to be “handled” and “re-packaged” within an inch of his/her life. At the end of the day, I wonder if they can still look in the mirror and like what they see?</p>
<p>Maybe that’s what’s so appealing, initially at least, about independently wealthy candidates (Perot, Romney, Schwarzenegger, etc) – there’s the hope that they actually believe what they say since they don’t need to be bought.</p>
… You’re right about the re-packaging of both candidates. These days, I’m betting any successful candidate has to be “handled” and “re-packaged” within an inch of his/her life. At the end of the day, I wonder if they can still look in the mirror and like what they see?</p>