Talk Elections

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1105451&srvc=rss

NEW YORK - In a break with tradition, Barack Obama will accept the Democratic presidential nomination at Invesco Field at Mile High, a 76,000-seat stadium, rather than at the site of the party’s national convention across town.

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean acknowledged the decision to move Obama’s speech on the final night of the Aug. 24-28 convention to the giant open-air football field of the Denver Broncos would raise security challenges, but said he and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper had agreed such challenges won’t deter the move.

Dean, in a conference call with reporters, also batted away questions about logistical challenges and added costs the change would produce, saying those things would be worked out in the coming weeks.

It won’t be the first time a presidential candidate has accepted the nomination in a stadium. On July 15, 1960, John F. Kennedy gave his acceptance speech before tens of thousands at the Los Angeles Coliseum.

Separately, one official confirmed that Obama’s aides were attempting to arrange a speech at a second dramatic venue: Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, part of Obama’s July trip to Europe and the Middle East.

The Gate was the site of one of Ronald Reagan’s most memorable speeches. On a trip in July 1987, Reagan stood before throngs of West Berliners and implored then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall dividing the city. The wall is no longer there.

Ron Perea, Secret Service special agent in charge in Denver, declined to discuss what security precautions the agency would take for the convention’s open-air event, including any restrictions on airspace and traffic.

Most of the convention will take place at the 21,000-seat Pepsi Center. Construction for the convention was beginning there Monday amid concerns about lagging fundraising and cost overruns.

Last month, the convention’s host committee reported it was nearly $12 million short of the $40.6 million it had pledged to raise for the effort. Host committee members spoke openly of needing the Obama campaign’s help to close the gap.

Dean said the convention was operating on budget, and Obama senior adviser Anita Dunn said the campaign was on board to help.

"The fact that the nomination was not decided until the begining of June — clearly many donors would have hung back a little to see if the candidate of their choice was going to get the nomination," Dunn said.

With an influx of younger voters and Hispanics in recent years Colorado, once heavily Republican, is among a handful of states in the mountain West that have been trending Democratic. Both parties view it as a general-election swing state; Republican John McCain kicked off a five-day economy-focused campaign swing in Denver Monday.

Obama is known for drawing huge crowds to many of his speeches. In May, a record 75,000 jammed into a riverside park in Portland, Ore., to hear him speak shortly before that state’s primary.

Obama is scheduled to deliver his acceptance speech on Thursday, Aug. 28, the fourth and final night of the convention. It coincides with the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s "I Have a Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963.

The Illinois senator is running to be the first black president.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Obama a megalomaniac?

Heel to Obama now and save yourself the trouble of having to do it later. ;)

Already some threads on this, already accusing Obama of being egotistical.  Who thinks that Obama or McCain AREN'T egotistical or thinks that this was entirely Obama's decision?  Seriously, this is ridiculous.

No, I'm serious.  Megalomania, unwillingness to accept responsibility for shortcomings, willingness to dispose of his friends whenever it becomes convenient, being "so concerned" about others when his recent choices obviously don't back that up, an obvioulsy casual relationship with the truth, even when it obvious to most impartial observers that he is being insincere, but being ble to cover up his lies by seeming emotionally sincere... he has most of the bad qualities of George W. Bush, just packaged differently.  This is all the more obvious to me, because I am now reading the book Bush on the Couch.

...and McCain doesn't have any of these qualities?

Is he going to wearing the new red, white and black armbands of the DNC?

That was my first thought when I saw this as well.  But, rather than mention that, I decided to go with a more sincere and serious approach.

Guess I forgot who I was dealing with.

He is going to be combining the style of Kennedy with a Carter sytled Presidency while in power and this guy's wife sounds at least 20X worse then Hillary!   

I might be wrong, but weren't you an Obama supporter with a D-MA avatar for a short time?

Sigh...

Speaking to a larger audience = better politics.

Larger rallies /= megalomania.

John McCain's inability to excite large crowds /= seriousness.

Obama's charisma /= Obama not having substance.

We are making reference to the fact that the last group to hold mass rallies in stadiums also brandished the swastika on their banners.  And yes, it is a fair comparison, because I'm sure they will do everything they can to make it as dramatic as possible, fueling the mass delusion, and avoiding the tiniest chance that someone might think for themselves rather than relying on the emotion they feel from being at such an "awe inspiring" mass rally.

Of course, pointing out Obama's personality flaws is pointless since his cult like followers, fueled by emotion, will make any excuse for him.

Hiel Obama!!!

Hitler and the Nazis copied the American way of running electoral campaigns, not the other way round.

Really? I never knew that.

That runs contrary to pretty much everything I have ever read, or heard, which indicates that politicians all over the world have copied Hitler's methods, to some extent... the question is, to what extent?  This seems pretty blatant to me.

I'm sure Martin Luther King Jr. would be surprised to learn that he didn't hold mass rallies.


That should be "Heil Obama."  If you're going to slander him, do it correctly.

Wow, it seems that the Republicans are this years Democrats. All they seem to be doing is b!tch and moan about everything.

Some of the Republicans are bitching about it because it's going to be effective and their convention is going to be pitiful in comparison. Really, I can see why they are frustrated. Makes them look like absolute idiots of course but I can see where they are coming from.

Cool. I'm going to be watching it. I <3 big crowds. :)

It amuses me that some who compare Obama and his supporters to Nazi's probably railed against the comparison of George W. Bush to Hitler that some extreme members of society made.

Comparing modern day politicians to the likes of Hitler is pretty tasteless and reduces debate to an extremely unfavorable level. Frankly, I pretty much lose respect for anyone that compares people like Obama or GWB to Hitler. These comparisons are extreme, inaccurate, and unnecessary. It would be best if we could avoid these distasteful situations.

I agree. While Obama's personality cult and huge ego annoy the hell out of me, saying he's like the Nazi's is a bit extreme. This latest change by Obama just reinforces that he'll do anything to get elected and he sees himself as wonderful as his supporters do. Speaking to a crowd on the same day as MLK and to a huge crowd, no less, make it look like he's setting himself up to be the heir apparent. Good political move, but grossly arrogant, as we already know Obama is.

That's what happens when your losing. The fringe stuff  (e.g., opponent party's nominee's personal habits) suddenly takes on a greater importance.  This matters because the fundamentals of this election make it prohibitively difficult for a Republican to win.

Never before has a party held the White House after the incumbent party's President has dismal approval ratings. The rising gas prices, slowing job growth, health care crisis, and cost of the Iraq debacle are also weighing down the Grand Old Pachyderm. At this point, most Republicans just want to start rebuilding again. Once Obama becomes President and raises taxes, the GOP will be back on track!

The dates for the DNC were chosen before Obama was the nominee

Dipsh*t

Desperate Times... this will make Obama's victory or the bloodbath after his defeat all the more sweeter.

Waaah!!! My candidate is dull and behind the polls so I'm going to compare yours to Hitler!

And the Democrats have become this years Republicans... flagrantly ignoring the short comings of their candidate, even though he is almost exactly like Bush in terms of personality.  The difference is that I have learned my lesson.

Well, the Obama zombie clones have made it obvious that having an open, honest, sincere discussion about their candidate is all but impossible.

Comparing Obama to Hitler is having an open, honest, sincere discussion? Who knew?

If you will go back to the start of the thread, instead of languishing in willful ignorance, you would see that I started by attempting a serious discussion and was immediately met with a "well... what about McCain" style response that attempted to deflect criticism away from Obama.

Dude are you f***in serious here? Isn't it pretty obvious Obama/his campaign chose the location due to it being a bigger and better spectacle than the Pepsi center? What did he exactly do that was wrong? He did not follow tradition? You seriously do sound like a little cry baby.

Didnt we already have a massive thread about this? and how nobody really cares either?

Honestly, this is ridiculous. Obama wants more people to see his speech and for it to be open to the public = megalomaniac. (btw, hardly a rational "discussion starter")

20,000 people isn't enough... so we need 120,000... and fireworks, special effects... make it as dramatic as possible so that people are so wowed that they will forget the fact that the speech itself has almost no real content.

Are you trying to parody somebody, or are you just bitter?

SEE WHAT?  Over 80% of the people in the stadium will barely be able to see him.  That's why they invented TV.  They want to hold such a mass rally as a demonstration of force to the people watching at home.  They are holding a huge rally, under the pretense that more people will be able to see it that way, but for the purpose of putting on a more impressive show to the people watching at home, and with the effect of generating mass hysteria for the candidate.

Yeah and Mccain has helluva lot of content? " That's not change we can believe in" * confused laughter/clapping*

Or...just alot of people really want to see him speak and have a good time at the event with a fireworks show and entertainment? I mean....that sounds fun to me...but apparently our definition of fun is very...very different.

That is the whole point of political campaigns. Bush did the same crap. I mean why do you think they planned the convention right around 9/11. All just a coincidence right? LOL you sound pretty naive right now.

Do you realize how ridiculous you appear right now? He's going to speak at a stadium. Oh my god. Is it a political ploy? Duh. Will it work? Probably. Don't get upset beause your corpse of a candidate couldn't pull this off. Is Obama cocky and arrogant? Does he have a big ego? Of course. So does McCain. They're uh, politicians. I mean, you can go ahead and try to argue this... retarded issue... it is kind of funny seeing you squirm and you truly do come off looking like a pitiful wretch.  

It's like when Bush landed on the aircraft carrier.  The only purpose is to show everyone how awesome Obama is... its no different from George W. Bush's need to show how awesome his penis is.  It's the same mentality.  It's ego.  Nothing but.

Chris, seriously.  Either you're really striving for a justification for hating Obama, or politics must really be a 24/7-hour fest of unbridled resentment for you...

You're kind of freaking me out here.

People know they'll barely be able to see him. They come so that they can say "I was at the convention which nominated the first minority as a major party candidate" People like to be part of history. Plus, it would be fun.

I am glad you realize that all politicians have huge egos. That is why they are f***in politicians.

You know, asshole, I was trying to keep this discussion respectful and defend Obama for once, but I forgot I was dealing with Democrats.

Will you be attending the Hitler-esque rally or will you be fainting/jacking off to Obama's speech in your bedroom?

Alright... you know what, I'm just going to shut up.  Apparently, I'm just insane.

The McCainiacs have truly outdone themselves in ridiculousness on this issue. He's giving a speech to a large crowd so it will look good politically.

Does not mean he has a large ego.

Does not make him Hitler.

Does not mean any of the other absurd bullsh**t you're trying to pass off as political analysis.

It means he wants to have a good campaign event. OH THE HORROR!!1!!!!

Newsflash - McCain has an ego too. All politicans do. They. Are. Politicians. I was going to degrade your intelligence (Even though you've done a bang-up job of that already) but something tells me you're mentally unstable at this point in time. Call it a hunch.

Your a hypocrite, thanks.

Whoever started this thread and whoever is continuing the meaning of this thread needs to talk about this with their therapist. Seriously. I am not trying to "censor" you, I just think that this is not what rational adults talk about.

He's a rust belt Republican. Duh.

Yeah, ration adults sit around and shout meaningless slogans at the top of their lungs to be just like everyone else around them, while they manage to forget that this is supposed to be an election for President of the United States, not the pep club.

I support Obama because I agree with him on the issues far more than McCain. If that makes me a goose stepping Nazi, well, so be it.......

Good move politically.....if McCain holds his acceptance speech at the Metrodome, more power to him.

We're not talking about Christianity

Yup. Bitter.

Hahaha.....funny. Not.

I thought you were done with this topic? Failure to cease this futile argument will result in the termination of whatever sliver of integrity you may have left.

Yeah... I am bitter, because I hate black people, and young people, and popular people.  That's what this is all about.  It has nothing to do with anything other than that... obviously. 

There's nothing wrong with being upset that Obama is winning, or with opposing him.....now you know how we felt in 2004. :)

But comparing him to a Nazi is a tad over the top Chris; you must admit.

Geez o' man. I was just joking. What's the matter?

Please... go back the the begining of the thread and note that I attempted to start by having a serious conversation about Obama's mental state.  Then look at the reaction I received.

I am telling you this right now, I am not bitter.  I have noted many disturbing patterns in Obama's behavior over the last few months.  I don't know why some people are so willing to shrug them off, but I am not.  I'm not crazy.  I'm not bitter.  I'm not joking.  I am being serious.

I don't think most people know why they actually support Obama, except that he is "cool".  Obama reminds me of Bush, as do his avid supporters, albeit younger and "wide eyed".  That disturbs me.  I made a huge mistake by supporting Bush, as did the country.  I don't want to see that repeated by putting in another person who is of the same mind-set as our ing insane current President.

Even his kids remind me of the Bush kids.  They act like they have never been told to do anything.

wtf is your problem? Your off your kilter

I agree completely. We must not let McCain become president

They do.  They made Obama make a promise that if he won the nomination the kids get a dog... WTF?  Kids extracting things from their parents.  They also seem to say whatever they want, which might be cute to some people, but I personally find it a little odd that they seem to have no idea that some behavior is a little unacceptable, even for a 10 year old.  Even worse, Obama trouts them out in front of the cameras with impunity, which isn't good for little kids.

Soulty, you're really losing it man.

I thought it was when the election was over. If he won or not. Good, those kids deserve something after having to be without their dads for long stretches at a time. Seriously, your making something out of nothing. What have they said that is so offense to your ears. THEY'RE 6 AND 10 AND ACT PERFECTLY FINE FOR THEIR AGE. They've only been out infront of the camera a few times and that's on their own choosings.

I can't believe I have to refute this crap. You're losing your mind.

Thanks, because when you chime in and say stupid sh**t like that it really helps my case.

The Nazi comments were overboard... on purpose.  But I don't care, I am sticking to my guns and I continue to maintain that I honestly think Obama has some deep-seated psychological issues, not dissimilar to those of our current President.

I think that to the extent that the Nazis regarded themselves as elite, it is an apt comparison.

What did Clinton and G. W. Bush have in common in their first presidential campaigns?  The both could affect the "Aw shucks, I'm a country boy," routine.  Obama hasn't managed that.  He comes off as elitist.

Now, in reality G. W. Bush certainly was about as elitist as you can get without being heir to a peerage, but he didn't look it.

I'm glad you are passionate about politics anyway...and willing to admit your past mistakes. :) That shows a lot of maturity....and you are still one of my all time favorite guys ever.....I just don't want to see you elevating your blood pressure over this.

You really didn't have a "case" to begin with. You're at the bottom of the barrel. So it's not as if you could be possibly be hurt by comments like those.

Actually, that is not psychologically healthy for children at all.   And I'm not sure how it works, but either way it was in exchange for something.  Giving children something as a replacement for a father's absence is, in and of itself, damaging to a child, as it teaches them any number of lessons, none of which are positive.  And the very fact that they thought they could make this demand is telling in and of itself.  That is my point, and by God its a valid one.  I don't care how crazy people think I am for bringing it up.

Nice!

So Obama=elite + Nazi's=elite = Obama=nazi. This logic makes my head spin.

Plus, the American people seem to disagree with your perceptions of Obama.

Most Americans think Obama shares their values/beliefs.

okay




No.




You are crazy. Seek help.

How is claiming that Obama may be mentally troubled something worthy of immediante institutionalization?

I've now come to the conclusion that I might as well stop posting altogether because I am never going to be taken seriously on this forum ever again... not that about 40% of the posters already didn't take me seriously.

Or maybe you could realize that obama fanboys are a bit off their rocker and that being driven off of atlas by a few nuts is going a tad too far in reacting.

My Dad was absent a lot on business - a lot. However, when around, we loved him, and admired his personal qualities and character and his three sons wished to emulate him, and largely did. He gave us everything, but it didn't spoil us, because we didn't want to disappoint him. That would have been totally beyond the pale.

In short, it is a bit more complex than you might suggest. The point is, if you really admire a parent for who they are as a person, and know that when the going gets tough, they are there for you, the numbers of hours around becomes less significant. Just my two cents. I suspect Obama over time might be in that category for his kids, although obviously I don't know the interplay with his kids up close and personal.

The Obamaniac frothing lynch mob we see in this thread sure inspires a total lack of confidence for what'd happen in the US if he loses. I wonder how long the rioting would go on for before the army finishes putting it down?

Valid arguments against Obama would include lack of experience, his flip-flopping etc. Invalid arguments would include moving to a bigger stadium and getting his kids a puppy. If you use an invalid argument, you deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule. This is applicable to both sides.

Yes, I know its complex, which is why I said "any number of things".  Long absences of a father aren't good for children anyway, but giving them something for it, even if its lovable, and cute, and seems like it loves you back, really isn't the way to handle the situation.

Believe me, I know all about paternal absence... my father was absent... oh... always.  As for my step-father, well, the only time I knew he was around was when he was yelling at me and telling me how worthless I was, so.....

I was noting a disturbing trend among some of his supporters in this thread. Obama and Paul share one thing in common -- their internet supporters tend to be frothing at the mouse and form into mobs at the slightest provocation. Perhaps late 2008 will be the time flashmob terrorism is introduced to the western mileu as disappointed Obama supporters react to their messiah's loss by going on rampages.

SS, abusive parental authority, or unloving and uncaring authority, or lack thereof, is no doubt toxic.

How do you know that is the only thing Barack and Michelle are doing/have done. The fact of the matter is that you are in no position to judge their family situation. Sorry...

Perhaps some people are upset at the comparison of a mainstream American politician holding a large rally with the political tactics of the National Socialist Worker's Party of Germany in the 1930s.

Charismatic speeches and large rallies _were_ part of the NSDAP tactics in the 30s. They prvoed effective so they've been adopted everywhere.

Perhaps you will become relevant sometime in the future. I won't hold my breath, though.

So you're going to deny that Obama is attracting the fanboy types who worship him?

No. Every candidate attracts fanatics. Just look at Hillaryis44.org for a prime example. Most of McCain's supporters aren't as vocal though because their heart monitors will go on the fritz if they get too excited. :P

Obama = looks like he considers himself better than everyone else, i.e thinks he's elite.  Nazis = looks like they considered themselves better than everyone else, i.e thinks they were elite.  It is not a good image to project.


Frankly, looking at the primary results, he has had a growing problem connecting with the American people.

The image of being in a stadium, even if perfectly executed, in front of people seemingly mindlessly chanting his name, is not going to evoke a non elitist image.

But but Hope and Change.

But has anyone stopped to think that, for all the seems to separate Bush and Obama on the surface, they actually have quite a bit in common.

They are both the product of situations where the father was almost completely absent, though being a very successful individual, and where the mother was anything but nurturing.  Bush's mother was totally self-absorbed in her own grief following the death of Robin, while Obama's mother seems to have been quite the thrill-seeker... eitherway, neither of them provided the kind of attention a younger child should have.

Neither of them could escape being reminded of their father's success... even bearing the father's name.  And neither could escape being reminded of the absence of that father.  This has a tendency to foster confused feelings in a child.  Often times, many children will, on the surface, idolize their father to an extreme degree, but if that father is very successful, they could then in turn adopt a subconscious desire to destroy their father (and his "penis") by out-succeeding them.  This leads to extreme egotism and megalomania... essentially the child fails to successfully navigate the phallic stage, in otherwords.  Often times, these people adopt an extreme fear of having their own "penis" destroyed, and as such they will resort to anything, lying, grandiose claims, taking on a external appearance of extreme personablity, to avoid being exposed as insecure.   

For his part, Obama seems to acknowledge that he was insecure and emotionally confused, and in that regard, he at least seems to be more introspective than Bush.  That's a good, thing, but Obama resorted to drugs to ignore the pain he felt... now he smokes like a chimney.  Bush went to drinking and drugs, and now he copes with an extreme belief that he is guided by divine providence.  Both are trying to deal with the anxiety left behind by their childhoods.

Now, it is in no way certain that a person will end up like this, if they have a similar background, and certainly, there are some big differences in those of Bush and Obama, but recently, Obama has shown many of the personality qualities that are most disturbing in Bush, such as his tendency towards making claims about his own abilities and experience that just don't match with the facts, and exaggerating their own potency.  Making implausible denials and trying to change the facts afterwards.  Obama also desperately wants people to view him as one of them and as someone who can be trusted by all and in everything, and this is particularly unseemly given recent events.  Both show a disturbing tendency to "throw people under the bus" when that person becomes in the slightest way inconvenient.

Something that Obama does that Bush doesn't, that can be disturbing, is his tendency to refer to himself in the third person.  It's a sign that someone is trying to distance himself from himself.  Bob Dole started it during the 1996 campaign, because he knew he was adopting policies more conservative than his own beliefs in order to appeal to the base.  And now we get to hear "Obama will bring an end to the war..." coming from Obama.  "Obama won't do this"... "Obama will do that"....

I do have real concerns here, I'm not being crazy or trying to bring down Obama.  And I certainly could be wrong, but I think its worthy of discussion, is all.  Obviously some people would rather mock me that discuss that matter.

LOL!  You obviously don't have close interactions with Black people.  If there was a group, even liberal, and not in the least racist, that was all White, a Black person would be worried about being lynched (as a friend of mine reminded me that night).

If there was a party that was largely white (but not racist), and the majority population was not white, you'd here calls of them being Nazis.


If you are referring to the most recent polls, he's still not a known quality.


It's not a Nuremberg style stadium and Hillary and McCain come off as not being elitist; Obama does.  (Note that I did not say, "is.")

Look at Phila's Mayor Nutter.  A successful stock broker, Ivy League eduction, about 20 years in politics and 15 on city council.  Elite by most standards and arguably a policy wonk.  He was trailing badly in the polls.  What does he start doing? 

Running commercials showing his daughter, showing him taking her to school.  Suddenly he comes across as a regular guy, the boy next door type, a real normal guy.  White people start voting for him and get annoyed when someone calls him "not Black enough."  He wins the nomination and his wife introduces him as "My Boo, my road dawg," in a moment we all found charming and real.  He get's called, by dyed in the wool Republicans (even on this site), as "the real deal."

With Obama we get Nuremberg; with Nutter we got nice.

Wow, that is quite a post, SS. You must be a psych major, or something. I am suspicious of reducing individuals however to the point that they fit into psych boxes based on what we think we know from the public square.

I trust my more prosaic metrics myself. They are more tangible.

Actually, I'm not a psych major, I just dabble... and alot of what I offered there is similar to my own life experience.  And as I said at the close of my post, I am not offering this up as a be all and end all, but when I say I note some disturbing patterns in Obama's behavior, I'm not just responding with a whistle, a leap, and a fart... I'm trying to have a serious conversation.

I don't believe people fit into boxes either, and I hope I have dealt with a number of my own issues, but acknowledging these things, rather than just sweeping them under the rug might be helpful.

The thing that bothers me the most about Obama is his tendency to disregard his friends and supporters so blatantly when they become inconvenient, specifically because that is so contrary to his public image which he himself so carefully crafts.

It reminds me of a quote from the movie Nixon

"John, sooner or later... sooner, I think... you are going to learn something that everyone who has gotten close to Richard Nixon has figured out.  That he is the darkness reaching out for the darkness.  And eventually, its either you or him."

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Remember how Obama threw away his first wife away like a piece of garbage after she was in a car accident? She simply wasn't good enough anymore, so he married some rich heiress beauty queen. Typical Obama.

Is it arrogant for Obama to move his speech to a larger venue so as to have a bigger crowd for the TV cameras?

It undeniably is.

There is all kinds of evidence to suggest that Obama has a massive ego, and perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence is that he ran for Presdient to begin with.  To run for President you have to believe that you should have the power of thousands of nuclear weapons at your fingertips, and that seems far more arrogant than wanting a bigger audience at your speech.  The only President of modern times who truly had no ego was Gerald Ford, and he was the only person who truly did not seek the job.

Do I wish that the enthusiasm gap were reversed and that Republicans were as excited about McCain as Democrats are about Obama?

Of course I do.

Frankly, I think the enthusiasm gap should be reversed.  John McCain is a war hero.  He is the first Presidential candidate I get to be proud to have voted for because I truly respect him as a man.  The most important thing Barack Obama has done in his political career is to get elected to things.  John McCain changed the way political campaigns are financed, he exposed and ended the corruption of Jack Abramoff and of the Boeing tanker deal, and his leadership on foreign policy saved our country from defeat in Iraq.  Tell me again why the enthusiasm gap favors Democrats?

Am I a little jealous.

No, I'm a lot jealous.

I hope it rains on the jerk.

Do I think Supersoulty is crazy?

Absolutely not.

I think he sees real comparisons between the way Bush approaches politics and the way Obama approaches politics. They both believe principle is less important than winning elections.  They both appeal to their party's base by appealing to the superficial and emotional rather than on substance.  They both approach the world in heavily religious terms that believe revelation and not inquiry is the proper mode of truth seeking.  Most dangerously, they both view history as a dramatic story in which they are chosen by destiny to play the role of hero, that they can change the world not by developing rational solutions to problems but by sheer force of will, and that change must be fundamental and revolutionary or else it is "small ball".  Supersoulty points out the various ways that the Obama story is beginning to parallel the Bush story and he is ridiculed by Obama supporters.  It reminds me of the way Bush supporters responded to attacks on their man after 9/11, frankly.  So visceral.  So emotional.  So personal.

Obama backers and Obama himself have no right to criticize anyone who says Obama is Bush's doppelganger.  After all, this is what you have been working on doing for years, is it not?  Building a Rove-DeLay style machine that could counter ours?  Isn't the whole idea that you just build a machine that can elect a Democrat President no matter what the cost?  After years of dailykos telling us their goal was to build the Democratic version of the Bush machine, you're angry that someone accuses Obama of running the Democratic version of the Bush campaign?  Please.

Besides, you have all forgotten the most important lesson of the Bush-Rove-DeLay story: It ends in failure, humiliation, and disillusionment.

McCain's first wife was a model, jackass.

So what? After her car accident she was an overweight cripple, and McCain began cheating on her. What a hero!

Er.. does that make it any better?

I don't think you're crazy, by the way, but I do think you went in to this idea on your own, formulated it, and then began picking away until the parallels seemed undeniable. A self-fulfilling prophecy, really.

My (God I can't even say the word anymore without feeling a little hoaky) hope for Obama is that, given his perceived intellectual capacity when compared to Bush, he would make a more concerted effort to surround himself with a wider balance of opinion. His campaign has tried to emphasize that change is not something he himself offers, just what he represents as a President of the people of the US.

I don't think you're in any place to criticize his family's dealings. Is there some quote you have that the reason the kids would get the dog was because Obama would be gone so much busy campaigning? Is there really an important reason that I even have to ask that question?

Your Freudian analysis was a little shallow I found, I'm sorry to say. What, exactly, is the purpose behind trying to find a reason why Obama is or seems to be so egotistical? I think the performance of Bush these past six years especially was the result of not some kind of mind-f*** as a child, but a mind-f*** after September 11th. I don't blame the man for it sometimes, I can't imagine not losing my bearings after such a thing. In any case, I fail to see the relevance. I don't care if Obama is egotistical unless it means worse diplomacy, and that is hard to imagine after 43.

I think this elongated campaign season may be toying with your mind a little, but the calls that you're crazy should cease. That said, this is still the campaign season. The acceptance speech is one of the critical moments of it. Obama will capitalize on that opportunity in the fashion his campaign has already been run. One thing we must remember is that campaign season Obama will likely not be similar to an elected Obama.

Oh, and one last thing - Obama throws people under the bus. He stood by the curb for a long, long time before he pushed Wright under, his first serious problem. Too long, many said. A representation of bad judgment? Quite possibly. But please, please, let's try not to dig too deep. There's a point at which the hole begins to fall in upon itself and you're just stuck. In the dirt. I'm going to go eat a burrito.

First, there are obvious signs of trouble in the marriage long before that happened.

Second, I don't pretend McCain is a perfect human-being.  He is flawed, just like everyone else.  But McCain doesn't put on a facade of perfection either, which is important.  And the real question is, is there a recent pattern of behavior?

I doubt he can get it up anymore, so it's probably not much of an issue.

Correct. Comparing him to Lenin would be a much more accurate slander.

Ross Perot, who paid for Carol McCain's expensive medical bills while John was in Vietnam said this:
"‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’"


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

Carol's wikipedia page covers all this.

I don't bag McCain much because of this, but certainly the guy has some ambition (he told his college roommate he wanted to do something so that he would be remembered in the history books and Carol early on that he wanted to be president).

No, it doesn't.  However, I don't approve of people attempting to use that as a misdirection tactic to draw attention away from Obama's shortcomings, which is, after all, why it was brought up.


Well, that makes three people I guess.  Actually, I came about the notion while reading Bush on the Couch.  I slowly started to realize a pattern with Obama overtime, including his tendency to use Bush-like tactics, but reading the book gave me a lens to focus with.  Not that that was my introduction to psychology, mind you, but noticing things and then putting them together is a whole different game... the latter takes time.


But if my thoughts are correct, and Obama has many of the same emotional incapacities as Bush, then its not going to matter that he is more intellectually capable... in fact, it might make it worse.  And as for "change"... its hard to see where the "he and it" stop and begin.  Is there really a difference?  Not in the minds of most people, I would imagine.  If someone represents change, than one assumes they are the vehicle to deliver it, correct?  Otherwise, vote for someone else.  If however, his only point really is that he merely represents change, then one must ask, how.  Is it just because of his race?  Because he is young?  Isn't that shallow, if either is true?


I merely brought it up to demonstrate similar patterns of behavior.  It's obvious that Bush's kids were never told how to act, what is expected of them, etc.  If Obama's kids are similar, and I think they seem to be, since they seem to get away with alot and say whatever they want, it indicates to me that they have similar parenting styles, which is indicative of similar personalities.  I didn't bring it up to be mean or vindictive, I brought it up as a side point, and it somehow became a main item.  As for the dog... Obama himself said as much, on a couple of occasions, and Michelle on a couple more... Hell, even the kids might have said it.


I admit, it limps, but I'm not a professional, and I don't have time to write a novel.  That being said, my purpose is to demonstrate that Obama might come loaded with all the severe personality problems that have made W such a bad President.  And I disagree that 9/11 had anything to do with Bush's flaws.  It merely allowed them to manifest in his need to be the big dude, his sadistic enjoyment of other's misery, his disrespect for people who really are capable of putting themselves in harms way for the greater good, etc.


I simply don't see the need for a speech in front of 100,000 people (as opposed to "just" 20,000) other than ego, and the desire to wow people with a show of force.


And Muslims, and his staffers who were disrespectful to Muslims, and Scarlett Johansson, and his own "white grandmother" (one could write a paper on his identification of her alone, or lack there of), and, and, and... when it happens a few times, its interesting... but it has clearly become a pattern.

I sincerely appreciate your willingness to approach this without calling my sanity into question.

H. Ross Perot is not a valid source for anything... and I'm not saying that because I am trying to cover McCain's ass... I'm saying it because it is H. Ross Perot.

That being said, as I said, I don't think McCain is perfect.  I respect him, but he has made his share of mistakes.

In reference to Soulty's last post, throwing ScarJo under the bus was my favorite part of Obama's campaign.

And the sad thing is, she probably still thinks he's an inspirational figure who will change us with the audacity of his hope.  God, there are so many people who are borderline brainwashed at this point in the campaign its getting freaky.

Yes, but all politicians do.


Yes, but all politicians do. Bill Clinton used a very similar "change" mantra to shore up his base in 1992. Reagan kicked off the 1980 campaign talking about "States Rights" or something along those lines. Superficial, emotional, anti-intellectual, yet effective.


Not quite sure what you mean. Can you provide examples?


eh, I think you're overanalyzing the rhetoric behind the campaigns. The "change" mantra is utilized, because, well, it works (1992, 1980, 1976, 1968, 1960). None of the aforementioned campaigns truly implemented nor relied upon "revolutionary" change in the political system (except maybe Kennedy via LBJ with civil rights, but that was probably going to happen with Nixon regardless). Largely, they have attempted to develop quasi-rational decision making mixed in with political calculations so they can win a second term. Unfortunately, this "rational" decision-making often has had too much of the latter mixed in (Bill Clinton) or is simply not all that sound (George W. Bush).


I'm not sure if I would describe the responses in this thread as "visceral," "emotional," and "personal." They don't seem to be taking Supersoulty all that seriously.


Well, yes. Given how you guys basically destroyed America over the past eight years, it would be prudent idea to build a political machine capable of winning an election to ensure a cessation of the damage.


Democrats and Obama supporters do not tend to view electing their man having as sort of "cost" attached so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. They're certainly not ripping apart John McCain like you guys did to Kerry, Clinton, and Dukakis.


Not sure what dailykos has to do with anything, but the comparison isn't really valid. using emotion to appeal to voters is hardly unique to the Bush campaigns and Obama has not gone after McCain like you guys went after Kerry. Even the stuff against Clinton was relatively tame, since all Obama had to do after his 11 win streak was play defense and not screw up while Clinton was forced to go into the attacking mode.


It probably will end that way because the circumstances upon Obama's entry will suck, but time will tell, bro.

OK, the above are two examples of extremely silly right-wing myth-making about Obama and the 2008 election.  States, Obama is obviously barely left of center even by American standards.  To compare him to Lenin is absolutely ridiculous.  Remember, just because someone is left of you does not mean he is left of everyone else.

And Ford - just because some people actually like their candidate for a change does not mean they're 'brainwashed'.  Remember your man Reagan?

Boris,


So anything that goes wrong is Bush's fault?  Scapegoating failure already, are we?  Now there's a change I can believe in.

You say that it's okay that Obama puts politics ahead of principle because everyone does it.  You say that it's okay that he uses vague language instead of outlining concrete proposals because everyone does that, too.  But isn't part of the whole idea of the Obama campaign that he is different from other politicians?

You asked for examples of Obama thinking of the world in religious terms.  Aside from the obvious examples of religious language to arouse the crowd's subconscious ("We are the ones we've been waiting for" invokes the coming of a Christlike figure, except that in true new-age form we all get to be Jesus just like we all got to be Time's Person of the Year), there are clear examples of Obama going further, even relying heavily on the scripture to justify public policy positions (Which, as I recall, was considered very dangerous to the seperation betweenchurch and state when Bush did it.).

One example would be his use of Christianity to justify expanding the welfare state.  One of the reasons Obama said he was drawn to Trinity United Church in the first place was that, in Obama's words, "Rev. Wright's sermons spoke directly to the Social Gospel, and I found that very attractive."  In other words, God wants us to be big government liberals.

The costs associated with electing Obama that I refer to are the cost of your principles.  The whole-hearted adoption of Obama as the Great Left Hope will ultimately cost you, in the same way that conservatives adoption of Bush has cost them.  Conservatives wound up defending everything Bush did not matter how much of an affront to Bill Buckley's conservatism it was.  Liberals are already beginning to do the same.  It starts with a defense of withdrawing from the public financing system ("His fully privately financed campaign is really just a different kind of public financing!"  Sure, and eating steak for dinner is just a different way of being a vegetarian.)  But it doesn't end there.  Obama's kabuki dance on Iraq is an affront to the basic principles most liberals say they believe in.  You guys can't possibly think that this is acceptable, can you?

I also don't agree that Obama has run a clean campaign.  The attack on Clinton that he was somehow racist were despicable, and everyone should be ashamed of Obama for having done it.  Especially his supporters who thought they were getting something different and have ended up with something exactly the same.

Let me also point out this one little thing in your post:


O Rly?


How could I have confused certain parts of this thread with "emotional", "visceral", or "personal" attacks?

Not personally, no, I don't.  I was not alive when Reagan campaigned in 1980, and was one year old when he was re-elected in 1984.  I was never in a position to be "brainwashed", my Reagan experience comes entirely from the history books.

lol, where did I state that? I merely stated Obama (or McCain) will be assuming the office under difficult circumstances. Most likely, due to forces outside their control, their success in dealing with the problems causing these circumstances will be limited.


I'm not really an Obama supporter so I don't quite understand your point.



No, I merely stated that all politicians do so. I never condoned its practice.


Yes, but I don't quite see why people believe it.



that is not a unqiue introduction in american politics.


OK, I understand your point, but this is more of the "appeal to emotion" stuff you touched on before and hardly unique to Bush, but essentially identical to the way modern political campaigns are run in the United States. It paints Obama as religious with "Kansas Values" while subsequently satisfying the base. It's part of a marketing game. Very little of this will be applicable in reality due to the way the system works. For example, a significant increase in the welfare rolls is unlikely because it's not really politically expedient for Obama to do so.


Well, sure. That's essentially how American politics works. One side fucks up/gets unlucky and the opposition takes over. It's cyclical. You guys will probably be slaughtered again this cycle, but re-emerge in 2010 much stronger.


eh, not really. They were lockstep behind him in 2004 but became disgruntled after the immigration thing, if I recall correctly. Don't know why they defended his performance in Iraq though; it was terrible until last year when they finally started to get their act into gear.


Not really an accurate description of their defense. They tended to trash the entire public financing system as opposed to claiming that his privately-financed campaign is a "different kind of public financing." Even though it was fairly obvious that the rejection of public financing was based on political expediency but whatever...


don't really see what sort of "kabuki dance" he's doing. All he's really said on the issue is that he wants american troops out of iraq within the near-future. Which is smart from his perspective because a) he probably hasn't yet had a meaningful conversation with someone who knows what they're talking about regarding up-to-the minute policy in Iraq [that will most likely occur during the transitional period, I'd imagine] and b) conditions on the ground in different areas will change for better or for worse within the next six months.


The operative word being "relatively." Obviously, there is no such thing as a "clean" campaign in modern presidential politics. Did those attacks on Clinton after the SC primary even originate from the Obama camp? Pundits in the media and prominent black politicians just kinda started to blast him. The whole episode was kinda weird.


Those three adjectives could hardly apply to me (and irrelevant with regards to the specific comment I made since you originally used those words within the context of defending Obama, which I was not doing). You guys advocated Bush in 2000 and 2004. He fucked up, badly. Everyone basically accepts this so there is no reason to be "emotional," "visceral," or "personal." And because he "fucked up, badly" there really isn't any reason to wonder why the Democrats want to run as effective of a campaign as Bush did in 2004.

What's with all the psychobabble?

All and all, you seem to pull conclusions out of thin air or use small instances as a means to base this "analysis" of Obama on. You also seem to be prone to over-exaggerating every single minute detail into a full on dissertation of Obama's mental state. This is not only irresponsible but completely refutable.

No, I only live 15 minutes away from a city that is 43% African American.

You state that Obama is a unknown quantity then you state that people view him as elitist. All I'm saying is that most Americans seem to disagree with you that Obama comes off as an elitist. That may be your perception of him, but It definitely isn't with a lot of Americans.

Obama needs to realize that pandering to the GOP base is going to turn off those of us with IQs above 40. If Obama ran as a real democrat I'd be still voting for him instead of voting Barr.

So you can dismiss source's just like that but use small instances in Obama's life to put together a fully-fledged analysis of his mind-state?

You live in New York. Your vote doesn't matter.

Congratulations, you've managed to crack the code and learn about the mystical lost art of making a protest vote. What's next? Learning basic reading comprehension?

15 minutes is a light year, in your case (and frankly the bulk of white people that I know).

The impression that os being created is that of an elitist; it is not a good move in American politics.

Except the fact that I used to work in a 90% black neighborhood and my next door neighbor is black. I get plenty of interaction with the African American Community, thank you very much.

I still don't get how giving a big speech elitist but whatever.

Like I said, a light year.  I had a friend raise it just last night after a visit to Myersdale, PA.  She was expecting to be lynched at the local fast food place.

Giving a big speech isn't.  Doing it in a stadium looks like it is elitist.  It plays to chanting crowd of which most people in the US are not part.  It's spectacle, Nurembergesque, but not reaching to the average voter.

Obama (and McCain) has to sit down at the kitchen table with the voter.

Perot in particular is known to have a nack for exaggeration, if not outright confabulation.

Perot would have been the best president of the 20th century had he even 10% more mental stability.

Did you see McCain's cozy speech in New Orleans with a crowd of a few hundred? It diminished him, and not in a good "jus folks" way.

That speech was a wreck... let us never mention it again.

I keep seeing it on The Colbert Report. I think I've memorized it:

"...job loss, failing schools, pensions at risk..."

"...and that's not change you can believe in. Hahaha..." (forced smile/confused applause)

That line was like an icepick through my temple.

Yeah, it was pretty bad, wasn't it? He's much better in the town-hall style rather than against his nemesis: The Teleprompter.

I live in North Philadelphia, with a white population of three percent, and I know most of my neighbors, and attend their weddings and family funerals.  My priest is Black, as is 2/3 of my church.  My most recent girlfriend was Black and from the neighborhood (Sissy doesn't count).

Please don't think you understand understand the Black community anymore than Obama understands the those white small town people that he calls "bitter."

Fine. I just don't want you saying I'm a light year away from them and you know them better than I. I don't want to have to play the "I'm more black than you!" game.

Do folks in your hood know your politics, and to the extent they do, do you get any reaction, and if so what?  Just curious.

It is true, however.  You think that because you are "fifteen minutes away" from a black neighborhood, you have special insight.  In actuality, Keystone Phil and Ice Hockey live 15 minutes away from a Black inner city neighborhood; I don't see either one claiming this.

Your problem is one that you share with Obama, and you've just illustrated the point.

We live in a culturally segregated society by race.  It's not legal thing, it's not enforced, it isn't even economic, but the outlook is different.  Some of it is urban versus nonurban.  Neither culture is superior to the other, but they are different.  In many cases, both cultures are interested in the other culture.

It happens both ways.  A lot of I was hoping that someone that represented both cultures, politically, like Obama, could relate to both.  His remark shows he doesn't.  His rally in a stadium has the same effect; it doesn't reach that segment that he doesn't relate to.

I really have had no interest in posting in this silly thread, but I do want to comment that I think moving the speech to a large stadium with 75,000 people is a bad idea, considering the people that I think Obama wants to go after.

The Obamajugend are of course busy preparing for the rally by shining their boots and getting their truncheons out.

Yes, or close too it, and in areas with less than a 1% Black population as well.  It's clear you just don't get it.  Sorry, but Saginaw isn't exactly North Phila. 


Your problem is one that you share with Obama, and you've just illustrated the point.



Because the bigness itself hurts, in increases the gulf between Obama and the voter.  This makes him look like he's setting himself apart.

BTW, I finally heard Jesse Jackson's remarks.  Yes, he's right about the appearance of talking down, but just not to Black people.  So now you have it in black and (semi) white.

Clearly, your correct. Saginaw isn't North Philadelphia.  However, was Philadelphia ranked the 14th most dangerous Metro area in the nation? Come to Saginaw, Detroit or Flint to see what poor economic conditions can do to race relations.

You're over analyzing the impact the Convention speech is going to have. If Obama is seen as elitist, it won't be because of the convention speech. Opening the Convention isn't going to hurt Obama. I don't think there will be any effect either way, However, I could easily make the counter-argument that the speech will likely help him because he's opening it up to non-party insiders. I think it is inconsequential either way though. 

Philadelphia was supposedly the murder capitol of the US.  No, you can come to North Philadelphia, but stay a while.  Don't drive through with your doors locked.

No, I am saying that doing the speech this way reinforces the idea that Obama is an elitist, and that is not good.

That'd be Detroit. Whatever though, you can think I haven't been in those situations when I have. I have nothing to prove to you.

It reinforces the idea for people who want to believe it. (i.e. you)

Will the Obamajugend execute dissenters at the convention?

Only you

I'm not going to the convention so I'm safe.

Now it seems to be Jesse Jackson as well, though I believe the term was "talking down to."  It is a problem and he's running a risk of making it worse.  If you are an Obama supporter, pray for rain.

I don't see how anything involving Jesse Jackson attacking Obama is bad for Obama.

I agree and it sucks. It should have been a love fest between the two of them. Damn. When is the Rev Wright going to publish his book?  I want it!

Exactly. This is a great news story for Obama.

Anyway, as I said elsewhere, this decision to break with the convention tradition annoys the hell out of me.

I always read this thread as "Obama to hold mass" on the front page of the forum and it makes me chuckle.

I just thought I would mention that.

I wish he wouldn't do this, but hey, hopefully it will excite even more voters.

You know that John F. Kennedy did the same thing, don't you?

Not that that convinces me that it's ok since I am no fan of JFK. Please enlighten me though. I could have sworn that he accepted the nomination in the convention hall in LA.

He gave it at the L.A. Coliseum.

Ah, interesting. Not shocking though. It makes sense that Obama, Mr. "New JFK," would do this - two insanely overrated egomaniacs trying every way they can to make themselves larger than life.

I'm wondering this -- what exactly is so sacrosanct about "convention tradition"?  Is this some kind of unspoken political thing I've never heard of?  A lot of GOP folk seem to be up in arms over this.

I can't believe this topic has grown this large. This may be the silliest thing I've ever heard people objecting to in my life.

Obama can fill an 80,000 seat stadium. It looks good on TV. So he's going to do it. It's really quite simple.

If McCain actually had the ability to do this he would've as well, and none of you would be saying any of the ridiculous bullsh*t you're pandering right now. Your anti-Obama hatred has grown to the point that you just try to find ridiculous crap to attack him on and then rationalize it as honest political criticism.

But if you want to carry on looking like fools, be my guest I suppose...

I'd be even more pissed off if our nominee (either this year or in the future) decided to do this. Should we move the inauguration to Giants Stadium while we're at it? Or how about the State of the Union in the Superdome? Being at the actual convention makes it something. This is just makes it seem like even more of a typical rally.


As I said, I'd be even more pissed at McCain for doing this. But even if this was just "anti Obama hatred" and my desire to "find ridiculous crap to attack him on," I don't know why your type would be complaining. You've picked plenty of ridiculous crap to attack the current President for so deal with it.

That seems more like an aesthetic concern than something to be pissed at.  It's the anger part I'm missing here.

Nothing in practice differentiates a modern political convention from a "typical rally" other than the fact that the convention is nationally televised.

Anger because it's more of his "this isn't politics as usual. We're breaking the mold!" attitude just to feed that ego. Personally, I think this 100,000 person crowd is overdoing it and while that doesn't make someone's poll numbers dip, I do think some people will be rolling their eyes at Obama trying to be Preacher Obama at his megachurch.


Then don't even have the convention.

I personally wouldn't since I find them annoying and anti-intellectual, but the candidates/parties seem to like the boost in the polls it gives them.

Here we have a 12 page thread on something that absolutely no one will change their vote over.

No, you wouldn't, but if it makes you feel better to think that you would, go ahead and do that.


Facts, quotes, examples, etc...

I hate this effing thread! Kill it! Do it. Do it now!

Why do I hate it? Because I agree with the loyal opposition entirely. This bitching about the venue of Obama's treating us to his soaring rhetoric of a leap of faith to hope, is total crap. Kill, kill, kill this thread. It ain't helping my team.

Oh, ok. I'm glad you can tell me what I think. "If it makes you feel better to think that you would, go ahead and do that." But please try to argue why I would. I've had no problem pointing out areas where I disagree with McCain so why would this be any different?

Do me a favor and stop being a worthless hack. Stop arguing like a child with "No, you wouldn't" and nothing to back up your claim.


Oh, I don't know. The fascination with blaming Bush for not going into action right away when he found out about the attacks (when he sat in the classroom for all of seven minutes!), the countless minor verbal gaffes, etc.

Clearly this is going to be the #1 issue this election. Next Gallup poll will probably find that 30% of Americans consider Obama's elitism in holding his acceptance speech in a stadium the most important issue, beating out Iraq and the economy.

Who here argued that this would even be an issue? I know I'm not.

Where were you when John McCain wanted multiple town hall meeting debates? Those violate recent campaign traditions. What about the regional campaign manager style? How arrogant of McCain to think he can try something like that.

You criticize Obama for breaking with "campaign traditions", yet when McCain does it you don't raise a stink at all. You're an otherwise rational person being blinded by your Obama hatred.



Ah yes, because I responsible for everything that anti-Bush folks have said about him.

I personally think he made the right decision with the book, and finding verbal missteps humorous is hardly equivalent to calling a man egomaniac simply because he's trying to run a good campaign.

You have still failed to actually point to an example of myself doing what you are doing right now. So...

J. J.

I don't think McCain ever argued against one on one, regular debates with a moderator so I don't see what I'd have to speak out against. If he said he didn't want those at all then he'd be criticized. Again, you don't seem to want to accept that I have no problem criticizing my candidate.







Well, I'm apparently just like every other McCain supporter who is just complaining about Obama because it's him so...


Good campaign move or not, I still think this man is so full of himself.


Fair enough. I won't provide an example until you can prove to me that I am only Pro McCain/only criticize Obama.



Quote? I'll admit that I didn't read this entire thread. If he said it, he's definitley kidding himself.

He has a huge argument with Flem over it which then turned into a pissing contest over who lives near more blacks.

Starting here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=78778.120

That's not my point. You're criticizing Obama for doing something different than is "typical" but the only reason he's doing it is because it's politically advantageous. Yet when McCain tries to do something similar, like the new style debates and his campaign structure, you don't raise a stink and start calling him names.


I never said that. In fact I didn't aim my criticism at any one of you in particular, you just interpreted it to be against you.


I still don't quite understand how a good campaign move equates to being egotistical, unless you're saying you feel that way for other reasons, in which case the original statement you made contradicts what you're saying now.


I never said that. What I said was that you unjustly criticize Obama for breaking with campaign traditions yet don't object when McCain does so.

I don't think it's quite on the same scale. Obama is trying to do something totally different. McCain isn't trying to totally change the debate style.


You said I wouldn't have a problem with McCain doing this and that I just said that I would to make myself feel better.


Being in this huge stadium with 100,000 people isn't necessarily the greatest campaign move. I don't get why some of you are drooling over that.


And again I'll say that I don't believe McCain really has broken with it. He wants to make one change along with sticking with an old format as well.

I think you're also missing something. Obama can do whatever he wants. It's his party's convention. I just don't like this particular break with tradition. That doesn't mean I have to dislike McCain's "break with tradition" in order to be fair to Obama. They're two totally different things so I can have differing opinions.

That's still not the point. All I'm trying to point out is that you get annoyed when Obama tries to change campaign traditions, yet don't when McCain does, and therefore I'm trying to impart on you that if McCain had done this you might not be objecting as much if at all (as you're doing on these other issues).


I did say that, but that wasn't what I said I didn't say.

Not to sound too John Kerry like there.


I'm not drooling over it. I just think it's a good idea, and to be annoyed or to call someone an "overrated egomaniac" just because they want to try it is excessive.


What I said above applies still, but you're also getting hung up on that one example too much. My point is that criticizing a candidate, not just John McCain or Barack Obama, for going against a campaign "tradition" is silly and I don't see why you object to it, or how it makes them an egomaniac. Campaign "traditions" are broken all the time. Was Roosevelt arrogant when he flew to Chicago to accept the nomination? Some might have said that at the time, but now it's standard procedure.


Fine. That's not what I'm criticizing you for doing.

You're probably typing a reply to this now, but I've got any early morning tomorrow so this must end.

I'll just conclude by saying that I do think you're an intelligent and thoughtful person (despite what I may seem to imply at times) and then also all that other feel good stuff.

A minor change in tradition - an addition to the format - doesn't deserve criticism in my book. You were trying to make the point that I'm not criticizing my guy because it's my guy. That's not the case at all since I have criticized McCain before and will continue to do so. My point is that saying I purposely don't attack McCain for something is wrong.

Nevermind people are still without a job, the economy still fcuking sucks, and the average price of gas is over 4 bucks. All of that is insignificant to the fact that Obama is holding his speech at some major venue where 80,000 people might attend. God...help us.

Gas will be high on January 19, 2009...and it will be high on January 21, 2009. A president can't automatically make the price of gas go down.

Yes but perhaps one of the candidates supported a policy which contributed to the high price of gas.( hint-Iraq)

If George W. Bush had done this in 2004--and he could have--Republicans would have been cheering and feeling like winners, and with good reason.

Actually, I'm arguing that is not a particularly good idea to stage the acceptance speech this way, because it can make him look elitist or perhaps arrogant.  I'm not criticizing him for trying something different, but for this action, and solely from a political aspect.

So therefore, you're arguing people might actually change their votes on this, which is just idiotic

I don't know how many times I've done this now but I will say it again - I have certainly criticized my party and candidates I support time and time again. I don't care what other people would have done. I don't even care that other Republicans don't like this thing Obama is doing.

Ok... personally I wouldn't have criticized the Republicans then or Obama now, and I don't think it would have made Bush look bad or elitist. He seems to have done well from cultivating an image of an adored leader addressing the masses, not elitist.

This really isn't about elitism; it just seems so arrogant. Why isn't the convention hall good enough? I guess 20,000 people just isn't good enough.

I still don't think this is a genius campaign move. Appealing to big crowds on the campaign trail? Fine. Surrounding yourself with 100,000 people on national television seems to be overdoing it.

If the deamnd to attend is as high as it is, if you have the opportunity to hold it in a place to help meet the larger demand, why not?

The way I see it, the choice is between addressing a crowd of Beltway insiders against as close an approximation as possible of the popular masses. Which makes it an incredibly easy choice. I couldn't possibly comprehend why people would think extending political participation into the public at large away from the orgy that is D.C. and local party interests is a bad thing.

It would be great if McCain did this too.

Ok, fine. Would you like the inauguration there as well?

Sure, why not?  I don't really see a reason to care.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

That's still not really answering my question.  It obviously pisses you off for an affirmative reason.  I doubt you normally get annoyed about "boat-floating" concerns.

Uh...I can't tell if this is serious or not especially since you didn't really ask me a question.

The question was the part in his post with the question mark.  "Why not?"

Good potential answers include words like sensationalism and cheesiness cheapening the legitimacy of the presidency.

I think most of the Republicans criticizing Obama for doing this are really just subconsciously jealous, just like most Democrats here would be if McCain could fill a football stadium and Obama couldn't do something a quarter that size.  I know it sounds harsh to say "you're just jealous," but really, there aren't that any valid reasons I can think of as to why it's bad, while I can think of many that 

Seemed more rhetorical to me, smartass. Thanks.


Eh, that's like telling me, "You're just jealous because all of the Hollywood celebrities want the other guy and you're stuck with all the losers backing your guy." Big crowds at these rallies don't mean as much as everyone loves to believe. Obama brought in thousands for a rally in Idaho. He could probably bring in thousands for a rally in Utah and Wyoming. It means little. It's nothing for me to be jealous about.

It wasn't rhetorical.  You were giving an example of a situation where you thought I'd get offended, to explain your offense.  I was asking "why not?" -- that is, what was wrong with doing the thing that was supposed to offend me.

I still don't totally understand.  So Obama has an enthusiasm gap and wants to show it off on TV.  Right?

I don't understand what the hell that means. I said, "Whatever floats your boat." You wouldn't mind having him do the inauguration at a stadium. That's your preference. I don't get how I was suggesting that you'd be offended.


I explained this to you already so now you're just trying to be difficult.

I assumed (incorrectly?) that your response to Smash was a reductio ad absurdum sort of deal.


I guess that I was assuming a bit of an AIM/forum disconnect for the audience here.  I understand your explanation, sort of.  You don't like how Obama is running on a "new kind of politics," and you see this break from tradition as part of that.  Right.  OK.  But if you're working back to use this as evidence of his bad-ness, I'm just not on-board with that explanation.

This doesn't really make him "bad." It just annoys me. I also think this is a sign of his inflated ego. As I said earlier, these crowds don't really affect the viewers so I don't get why he doesn't just do this at the convention. Again, this isn't him being "bad," just irritating.

Right.  So it is more that this is circumstantial evidence of his inflated ego, than the act itself is bad?  That's a fair response.  It's what I've been trying to elicit.

Don't most politicians have "inflated egos?"

Of course. You have to to run for office, especially the Presidency. I think the argument being made here is Obama's ego is especially huge for a politician.

Do we have a meter now that measures politicians ego's?

No, but insisting on moving your acceptance speech to a football stadium so you can have 80,000 people listen to you in person is a fine rule of measure.

Insisting? I doubt this was just his decision, I am sure both the DNC and his advisers must love this idea. I think the mayor of Denver is on board too. Its not like he is acting a brat and he must get his way against the wishes of the democratic party and the city of Denver.

As Alcon said, it wasn't.  I mean, I understand why you ignored it (it could be construed as rhetorical) but when he mentions that you ignored his question it's pretty clear what the question is.


I agree to some extent.  If Republicans complained that Obama was showing off with his celebrity endorsements constantly and accused him of being self-centered because of him showing up and making millions at big Hollywood fundraisers, I might level the accusation again.

Obama has plenty of material for people to ding him on, he's in no ways perfect.  Why choose the most petty of things to level the big guns (as big as one can find on this forum)?

I just hope everyone's praying that it doesn't literally rain on the Obama parade that night. It sure would suck if Obama had to be humbled with a crowd of just 20,000 instead of 80,000-100,000!

If it is really inclement, it will just move back indoors. Gosh, I wish this thread would die. But nobody cares what I think. :(

It seems to me that spite isn't an especially superior personality trait to ego, especially for someone with the luxury of not being a U.S. Presidential candidate.  :P

So, you really think that his advisers are telling Obama that giving one of the key speeches in his campaign in front of a huge (!) audience, the speech that more people in the country will watch than anything else, will have no effect whatsoever on the local and national media covering the event?  It's pure egotism?  Are you serious?

I don't mean to be a smartass.  Obama and McCain are probably about equally ambitious as far as I can tell, they both wanted to be president from a young age (McCain wanted to do something to "get himself into the history books" when a teenager, Obama told his kindergarten teacher he wanted to be president).  Are you really going to think that if McCain could do the same thing, and he thought it could help him win the presidency, that he wouldn't do it?

Having 75k people screaming his name DOES help for the *one* speech that people will watch.  It shows him as acceptable, popular, and commanding.  Those are all three adjectives he needs to convey in order to win.  I don't see why he should intentionally go out of his way to be humble if it means he might lose the presidency because of it.  Voters are unquestionably swayed by the political conventions, thus the traditional "post-convention bump" that occurs every time and is generally more significant than any other bump in the campaign cycle.  So these conventions do have an impact and I'm 100% certain that Obama and his advisers think giving what may be the best speech of his campaign (McCain's speech will probably be his best speech too) in front of more people will give him more stuff that translates into votes.

The crowd is mainly egotistical, yes. Any advisor with a clue would realize that the size of a crowd at an acceptance speech won't affect how people feel about this guy. It doesn't matter who is watching/covering it. Does it get mentioned/noticed? Sure. Will it change a single vote? Well, wouldn't this be an appropriate question for a BRTD poll...


No, I'm pretty sure you are and I'd have a lot more respect for you if you just said it.

 
Maybe he would do it but maybe you aren't following this very simple point - I don't care who does it. I would be even more irritated if McCain did it especially because it won't help him win.


Sure the conventions can have an impact but did Bush receive a big bounce because of his speech or because the crowd was waving "USA" signs? This isn't about the crowd.

Dawg, I'm not going to engage in aggressive internet-fights trying to gain anonymous internet respect.  I stopped reading at this point, I think I'll bow out of this thread.

Since even Phil seems to be agreeing this isn't going to affect the election or anyone's vote (unlike J. J.), why is he pushing this thread past 15 pages over something irrelevant?

You mean Republicans like Jesse Jackson?

This entire thing is a perception problem for Obama, and this does not help.

Because it annoys me. We discuss plenty of irrelevant things here, Zachy (you of all people should know this), so what's your point?

The hottest ticket in town was literally burning the ears of the phone operators Thursday.

That would be the ticket for Barack Obama's Aug. 28 nomination acceptance speech at Invesco Field at Mile High — an event expected to draw 75,000 people on the final night of the Democratic National Convention.

In about a 24-hour period, 60,000 Coloradans had submitted requests for tickets — forcing the Obama campaign to start a waiting list. The campaign and the Democratic National Convention Committee said more than half of the available seating would go to Colorado residents.

"We're pleased that so many people want to be part of this historic event," Obama spokesman Matt Chandler said. "We've said from the start this is going to be America's convention, and I think we've seen today that it's truly going to be Colorado's convention, too."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/07/obama-ticket-lines-jammed/

Those complaining about Obama's arrogance and ego probably mostly loved Bush's for the longest time.

Of course everyone likes confidence and arrogance when the "good guys" do it....

Bush wasn't the type wanting his face on t-shirts like Che or stuff like that. When Bush was called an "American Revolutionary" in the TIME 2004 Person of the Year issue, I thought it was a bit much.

Bush never claimed to be the one the world has been waiting for. Bush never had his name designed into some sort of Presidential seal. Bush never wanted a crowd to chant his name over and over again. Bush might be cocky as well, but he seemed like he was always running for President to help America. Obama seems like he is running for President to help Obama.

Yeah, I applied for a ticket yesterday morning. Let us pray I get one

And to add to that, those 75,000 will be chanting Obama's name, not "USA," like they did at Bush's last convention. It really doesn't compare.

Obama did?

Obama did?

You're a shameless liar and an exaggerator to boot.

I don't remember Obama declaring whole cities and states to be "Obama Country."

Lighten up. 

Every campaign does that.

Nah, it's always been about working out his issues with his father and taking his mother's strong direction.

"Bush Country" in 2000 was a big phenomenon and Bush said it himself, all the time. It was part of his standard speech.

I agree with you that it's not a big deal; it's other people who seem to think there's some substance to their complaints about this kind of thing.

I don't get that at all. Like I said, every campaign puts up signs like that. I don't get how Bush 2000 was a phenomenon because of it.

It wasn't just signs. He said it, too. Shouted it to the masses. Al Gore couldn't get away with saying "Michigan is Gore Country" with the frequency and zest that Bush proclaimed it with. Bush, with an ego so massive and enormous it blocked out the sun, loved to inform people at his rallies that they were living in a state that HE owned, and their residence in that state reflected their devotion to the name of BUSH.

Gaze on the sight of an ego so large it crosses state borders to give Hillsdale College a playful smack on the ass:

()

This sounds so assinine. Mentioning that a state is "______ Country" isn't arrogance; it's a "tatic" that has been used for quite some time. I apologize if Gore couldn't get away with it because he had the charisma of a 90 year old man. That doesn't make the man that used it "arrogant."

The great hero BUSH loved himself and his name deeply and with great passion. Why else would he have given speeches to crowds of people who liked him and supported him, if not because of his swollen ego? Why would he have allowed his followers to create t-shirts with his graven image, if not as testimony to his devotion to himself and his own self-love? These are signs. Read this thread and learn.

()

::)

How 'bout we just agree to the fact that arrogant politicians that we don't agree with make us mad, and this anger is mainly due to the fact that arrogance is overall a virtue in politics much more than it is a liability. :)

Considering the chanting "Obama" crowds are being used in negative commercials, it might be a good idea to pray for rain.

I don't think that's really relevant.

I do, because of image it creates.  Obama is playing into that image, and it has a potential of costing him votes.

I know we've had this 'discussion' before and I know neither of us is going to change each other's mind, so....

Except, we've started to see some examples of it happening.  We've seen Obama's numbers, after huge press, either hold or decline slightly.  It's not good.

How can you attribute it to one image which doesn't even seem to be a problem for Obama? McCain has hit him on gas prices and not being ready to lead--would you argue those were non-factors compared to footage of people shouting his name?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

It makes his look like a "celebrity" and arrogant.  It's the image and it can hurt him. 

Don't worry JJ (i know you're not) because your argument will be vindicated in the long run.

Phil, what he's saying is that that doesn't really make him arrogant. Neither does anything comparable Obama's done.

Bumped.

Sun still rise in the morning? Check.

Dogs still chase cats? Check.

J.J. still a clueless hack? Check.

lol wow

A case could be made that Obama was in freefall until the economic crisis occurred, which put him over the finish line.  Mid-August was about the point when a President McCain became seriously contemplatable.

That was even more funny than JJ's inanities.



And a case could be made that you're a braindead, bigoted hack.

J. J. hasn't made a single post in May, and he only made 10 in April. Even he got the hint.