Obama's putting out lots of neat videos online, but he doesn't seem to understand most people never see them. What on Earth is he spending his money on? McCain's getting tons of free advertising and support on TV, while there's virtual silence from Obama there. It's like he's dead, or already lost the election.
If he can't or won't raise his visibility on TV, he's going to lose the election for sure. I've watched him already lose votes across-the-board in Tennessee with this 'just lay back and take it' stance. He's getting crucified on almost every single TV channel here. And if he was just planning to wait until the last moment to do a TV campaign, well, I'm afraid that's stupid as hell. For people are setting their voting decisions into stone at this very moment.
McCain/Palin's massive support from the mainstream media is allowing them to maintain strength no matter what happens in the news. The media minimizes or explains away any mistake or weakness on their part, while amplifying same regarding Obama. And remember the election fraud element: Republicans only need be no more than 3 points or so behind Obama in the vote to easily get the rest of the way with tampering. They can deal with a bigger gap than that too, but are more likely to be caught at it. However, once in office they can quash any investigation and continue on their merry way of dismantling the country.
I've forgotten where you are, JR, but we're in Wisconsin, a so-called battleground state, and we're being flooded with ads from both McCain and Obama. For me the problem isn't the quantity of the ads, it's the quality: McCain's commercials are full of lies, smears, and utter McCain manure, and they hit very, very hard, while Obama's commercials are generally pleasant and make a good political point but they're still far, far too polite.
I keep telling myself that Obama's team knows what they're doing, and hey, he kicked the Clinton machine to the curb and he's rising in the polls against McSlime and he's a far, far better candidate than Gore or Kerry, but still... I grow antsy. Like you say, more and more "undecideds" are becoming "decideds" every day. McCain's ads hit you like a frying pan over the head in a cartoon and they're as dumb as any cartoon, but there's no denying that you've been hit. I seriously question whether the Obama ads are really hitting the undecided crowd.
Oh! I thought you were in Arkansas or wherever! Ha, ha. I'm in east
Tennessee.
I mainly only see TV 30-40 minutes early in the day during exercise, and
then maybe several hours during the late evening three times a week. But
there's virtually zero Obama ads here. And only a smattering of McCain ads --
but still more than Obama. McCain doesn't need ads here though, as there's
usually 6-12 channels praising him/Palin non-stop but for breaks where they
bash Obama. Pat Robertson and his buddies alone command 3-4 channels!
Besides those, there's sometimes weird pro-Republican documentaries on the
history channel and elsewhere. It all looks really, really bad.
And don't forget Obama deflating many of his most ardent supporters over
FISA and his switch from anti-war to war monger. That cost him dearly in my
opinion. And it sure does seem that 'Obama mania' has disappeared, doesn't
it? McCain didn't take it: Obama killed it himself. Thinking it would be
clever to reposition himself differently after clinching the nomination. And
as I've said before, Obama seems oblivious to the factor of racism. Yet
racism against blacks is likely deeply embedded in at least 15% of white
Americans. So he simply couldn't afford to give away those anti-war and FISA
voters. And yet he did.
So at best he's already squandered any safe margin for error in the
campaign. At worst, he's already lost. And maybe worse still is how sorry a
shape America must be in for us to even be having these concerns under these
conditions. It's like we live in Zimbabwe.
McCain/Palin's most loyal voters treat elections like they're merely local
ball games they love to attend and root for the home team. Issues don't
matter. The candidates only partly matter. It's mainly the uniforms
(Republican brand) they're cheering for. It's always possible to change the
minds of many-- maybe most-- Democratic and Independent voters. But the
reverse is true for most Republican voters: it's almost never possible.
McCain/Palin could chop up and eat babies on live TV, and lose far fewer
Republican voters than you'd expect in the election.
I think many or most Republican voters also admire lying, hypocrisy, and
criminal behavior in their leaders, for some reason. Maybe because they
actually believe winning is more important than anything else.
I'm not accustomed to optimism, but I wouldn't say Obama's lost already. His recent ads have been improving, his poll numbers are on the rise, and the well-earned tag of "liar" is starting to stick to McCain. From what little I know about Tennessee I don't think it's possible for Obama to carry the state, so it makes sense if his campaign has abandoned your state.
I do worry about the race factor, and I'd be curious to know what percentage of Americans simply won't vote for a black man, even if his opponent is a doddering old fool with a long history of lying, corruption, incompetence, cancer, temper tantrums, and more lying. You think it's 15%? Yikes -- I hope it's less than that, but whatever the number I assume most of those people wouldn't vote for a Democrat even if he was Snow White. And of course there's the stupid vote and the stolen vote, two voting blocks that always go solid Republican.
I lost much of my never-great enthusiasm for Obama when he gave away the Fourth Amendment, and really all I've got left is "not McCain". But you're about the third person who's mentioned Obama's "switch from anti-war to war monger", and I don't remember this switch. Can you 'splain what you mean?
Obama's long been lukewarm in his opposition to the attack and occupation of Iraq -- good rhetoric against it but then he votes for funding more war, and he's got a molasses timeline for withdrawal with handy loopholes for staying longer if the situation changes. But that's been his position for as long as I can recall. And he wants more troops in Afghanistan, as do US military commanders. More troops for Afghanistan was a position change from Obama, but not a surprise -- he was never against attacking and occupying Afghanistan, says "it's a war we have to win" and such claptrap, and he's never spoken of withdrawal from Afghanistan. I think he is what he is on these stupid, wasteful wars, and I don't remember any flip-floppery.
Comment: (9/21/2008) I only saw a smattering of the campaign between Obama and Hillary. And
actually listened to a big chunk of a single Obama speech. When he was
running against Hillary he seemed pleasingly anti-war, compared to Hillary's
record of going along with the Iraq war, verbally attacking Iran, etc. After
he had the nomination he seemed to completely flip flop and talk even more
aggressive military-wise than Hillary ever did. Even about boosting military
spending beyond the absurd heights it already is, and supporting Israel no
matter what, and -- verbally attacking Iran. GRRRR! His 'national service'
for everybody also sounds at least partly suspiciously much like a further
militarizing of the country, beyond the near total war footing it's already
been on since not long after WWII. Sheesh! We cannot afford that crap! Even
if our economy wasn't in ruins already!
Add atop that the in-our-face flip flop betrayal on FISA/Presidential power
grabs, and he seems even more like Bush/Cheney in terms of what he might do
in office.
I realize much of the above behavior is (hopefully!) more posturing than
predictions (you can't explain away the FISA betrayal as mere posturing
though). But I'm very uneasy about it. And taken wholly at face value, it's
pretty horrific from my point of view. Not as bad as McCain; but still awful
bad.
I also disagree with sending large numbers of troops to Afghanistan.
Terrorism is a plain old criminal law subject, and should be treated as
such. Not in large scale military fashion. I can see sending a small group
of commandos into a specific mission somewhere after legal processes have
determined who should be arrested, and normal extradition can't work. But
that's it. Terrorism is just another flavor of criminal act, plain and
simple. Using it as yet another excuse for unimaginably vast and wasteful
military spending is likely a bigger crime than anything the terrorists
could ever do to us on their own.
If terrorists ever use a nuke on us, that
nuke will likely come directly or indirectly from an inventory we helped
create ourselves, or encouraged or scared others into creating. The anthrax
attacks were reported to have used anthrax we created ourselves in war
research. Excessive military spending is a crime against humanity, and only
opens the door to mind-boggling acts of terrorism, often with our very own
war toys used against us.
Even Russia's nukes probably came mostly from them stealing secrets about
ours in the 1950s.
Nations like the US likely despise terrorism by individuals or small groups
most because they think terrorism should be a tool only wielded by nations:
not individuals or small groups. America and Israel both use terror tactics
routinely in their policies. Innocent people are being terrorized and killed
in Afghanistan by the US almost daily now. Pakistan too.
I think 15% of U.S. whites being steadfastly racist is a super-solid figure.
And likely a low ball one. Keep in mind many white people who seem perfectly
nice in virtually all other situations will step into a booth and with no
hesitation whatsoever vote against someone solely for the color of their
skin, their sex, religion, or their origins -- or because Fox News told them
to. Obama would face the racist hurdle in America even if Fox News didn't
exist, and the mainstream media actually reported facts rather than greedily
spreading fictions and fantasies.
JR MooneyhamPERMANENT LINK
First, on the black-white thing, I've lived on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, and beyond the South I just think things are better than that 15% estimate, at least among Democrats. But I have no evidence to support that, beyond my own observations. The big change, I think, was school desegregation in the 1960s and '70s -- whites who grew up in desegregated schools and actually knew black kids have a lot less prejudice than their parents. And most white people in the work force have worked alongside (or under) black people.
Sure, though, there's a large percentage of Americans who'd never vote for a black person -- but they don't matter because they'd never vote for a Democrat of any color. And then there's the more mildly racist chunk of the populace, people who'd hold blackness against a candidate but could still be convinced to vote for a terrific black candidate (or against a god-awful white candidate) if other factors outweigh the prejudice. A lot of them might well be Democrats, but the rather stark difference between Obama and McCain in competence and integrity will factor well within that voting block. I think. I hope. And I guess we'll see soon enough, eh?
As for the political issues, you're thinking logically and clearly, JR, and that's your first mistake. Obama ain't great shakes on anything, except that he's got more smarts than most politicians and he writes and delivers a better speech than most. I make no excuses for his many dead-wrong positions, or for anything. But I do tend to think (or hope) a lot of it is posturing, including the FISA horror.
Maybe Obama honestly believes that the Fourth Amendment ain't worth spit, but he's a Constitutional lawyer so I'd say it's more likely that his stand against the Bill of Rights was posturing. I think he assessed the political landscape and decided that if he tried to explain the Fourth Amendment to Americans, he'd be painted as a lily-livered ACLU freak. I think he was wrong, both morally and politically -- he could have explained it and made it work, and it would've been a big PLUS for his campaign, not a MINUS. It was a big mistake, and it may yet cost him the election.
Then again, I've never held political office above precinct committeeperson, and Barack Obama is a Senator. So maybe he knows more about political reality than I do, and maybe he made the right decision (politically). Again, we'll see soon enough. Gulp, swallow hard, and worry.
Bottom line for me is that Obama is a middle-of-the-road politician, so it's best to keep our expectations minimal. I pay little attention to his speeches, and assume that almost any policy announcements he makes during a campaign should be written off as bullsh*t posturing.
On Iran, for example, Obama (or any candidate who hopes to be taken seriously) has no choice but to echo the Bush-Cheney nonsense. The lies of Bush and Cheney have never been challenged by media (on Iran and so many other issues) so those lies now form the boundaries of "reasonable discourse". Even if Obama agreed with you and me (and sane observers everywhere) that Iran poses no realistic danger to anyone outside its borders, if Obama actually said that (or said anything approaching that) he'd be laughed off the national stage. He'd be red meat for Republicans, and they'd rip him to pieces. His campaign would be effectively ended. He would no longer be a "serious" candidate.
Ipso facto pepto bismo, on this and myriad other issues I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that Obama's as smart as he seems. I'm disregarding the blather he's required to speak during the election, and hoping he'll disregard most of his own blather if he's allowed to win and take office.
Comment: (9/21/2008) You make some good points -- plus, as you say, clear and logical thinking doesn't necessarily apply to the election. After all, it didn't in 2004. And I've never held any political office at all that I can remember. So I may have zero expertise there.
I guess I just wish that in my twilight years my government would actually become a help rather than a hindrance, for a change. My whole life has been a struggle -- many times against 'the establishment', or related matters of 'connections' or wealth which I personally didn't possess. And I sure am tired! Ha, ha. Plus, I got my nephews and niece all just starting out on their own journeys. I wish I could help make America a better place for them to live in before I'm gone. But as things stand now, it's going to be a far worse place than what I inhabited. And my own circumstances were pretty grueling at times (and still are). Yikes!
If somehow I got rich enough overnight, I'd pack up my extended family and move us all to a saner place like Canada or Europe or whatever. For I'd sure like to worry about completely different (and less survival-related) things than I do now.
JR Mooneyham (www.jrmooneyham.com/)PERMANENT LINK
Oh how I share that perspective of wanting government to provide help instead of hindrances... but the cliché is "lesser of two evils". I've always found that silly line very, very frustrating, but McCain is a remarkably evil 'evil', even on the Republican scale. He's corrupt to the core and senile, a frightful combination. He's far more blatantly evil than Bush, who's really never been anything but Cheney's puppet, and McCain has already surrounded himself with "aides" (puppeteers) as monstrously evil as Cheney. McCain isn't, as some people say, more of the same as Bush-Cheney -- he's worse, piled higher and deeper in evil.
Obama is just a traditional "go along to get along" Democrat in the Kerry-Gore-Clinton-Dukakis-Carter mode. A lesser evil, but compared to the opposition a much, much lesser evil. And for me, the Bush-Cheney-McCain evil is so very, very evil that Obama's noticably "lesser evil" would be lesser hindrance... and that's the next best thing to actual help...
Comment: (9/22/2008) He has probably conceded Tennessee, West Virginia, etc. Gotta save the money for the battleground States.
RaPERMANENT LINK Comment: (9/22/2008) I believe two things are happening here. One, Senator Obama is trying to put ad dollars where they're most likely to do some good -- some areas get little or no ads because they're either already heavily pro-Obama or already heavily anti-Obama. He's wisely putting money into areas where it might swing a state.
The other tactic is (likely) to build up gradually to spending a lot of money in the last couple of weeks. Sadly, many Americans have a "political memory" of about 14 days.
All24PERMANENT LINK Comment: (9/22/2008) McCain is +19 points on average in Tennessee, there isn't any point.
The Dark LabsPERMANENT LINK Comment: (9/22/2008) Mooneyham or whoever is living in a little bubble. Obama is the hot shit in sane states, sorry you live with morons.
Whitey4ObamaPERMANENT LINK
