Let's be cynical - WHY would the Democrats nominate Obama?

[shawmutt]

I mean cmon - the country is a WRECK! A total, utter train wreck. On all fronts. You name it - economy, military, foreign policy and diplomacy... is anything going well?

The major problem with this country is that it's full of whiners. Half the world's population lives on less than two dollars a day. Even with things "as bad as they are now", we are still able to afford to be on the Internet, for one example of our wealth.

I'd vote for whoever I thought was going to do the best job for this country. I voted for Nader in '00 even though I knew I was "throwing away my vote". Skin color doesn't matter one bit to me. If the primaries and polls are any indication, it doesn't matter to a whole lot of people.

[Shamantiks]

Shaw, there is certainly ALOT of room for things to get worse around here. Sure we whine alot currently - but it's not based on our wealth relative to other countries, it's based on the fact that we're losing wealth rapidly. Anyone should be complaining and trying to stop the bleeding if they are headed into a downward spiral. Relative to where we were 4 or 8 years ago, there is alot to legitimately complain about.

You're right that there are tons of people who look past color and vote for the best candidate - the polls show that. But if Obama were white, with the same speaking power, charisma, don't you think it could be more like a landslide than a neck-and-neck race? We can't prove this point, it's highly speculative, but if the repubs have an outgoing administration in shamble, a weak slate with Mccain/Palin, and the Dems have an intelligent, well spoken charismatic 'rockstar', shouldn't this be a landslide? Why is it so close?

[shawmutt]

Shaw, there is certainly ALOT of room for things to get worse around here. Sure we whine alot currently - but it's not based on our wealth relative to other countries, it's based on the fact that we're losing wealth rapidly. Anyone should be complaining and trying to stop the bleeding if they are headed into a downward spiral. Relative to where we were 4 or 8 years ago, there is alot to legitimately complain about.

I'll agree to disagree. In my opinion, we surpassed our "needs" a long time ago, and have an unhealthy dose of "wants". Now that we can't afford as many "wants", we whine.

You're right that there are tons of people who look past color and vote for the best candidate - the polls show that. But if Obama were white, with the same speaking power, charisma, don't you think it could be more like a landslide than a neck-and-neck race? We can't prove this point, it's highly speculative, but if the repubs have an outgoing administration in shamble, a weak slate with Mccain/Palin, and the Dems have an intelligent, well spoken charismatic 'rockstar', shouldn't this be a landslide? Why is it so close?

This is where we were four years ago. The only difference is there was an old crusty white guy named Kerry and his young sidekick Edwards--and they lost.

I'm not saying there aren't people who won't vote for Obama because he's black. Fortunately, those people make up the same demographic who wouldn't vote for him because he's a Democrat. Likewise, among Democrats there are those who will vote for him because he's black. I don't agree with that either.

I take exception to the "rock star" reference. I'm voting for a politician I believe will do the best job in the White House, not a "rock star".

Like it or not, Republicans will have an edge on foreign policy for a while. Many Americans, especially the ones that can be counted on to actually get out and vote, cringe at the idea of working with other countries to solve the world's problems. Republicans currently give them the answers they are looking for.

[Shamantiks]

"I'll agree to disagree. In my opinion, we surpassed our "needs" a long time ago, and have an unhealthy dose of "wants". Now that we can't afford as many "wants", we whine."

Your are correct, we have way more than we "need". Which is just food, water, shelter. However I think I'm right too - we are losing wealth rapidly, and that is cause for alarm and 'whining'. Your point does not disagree with mine - they are both correct.


On Obama, it's the rest of the world that has labeled him a "Rock Star". He has celebrity status and is hailed with cheers wherever he goes - outside of the country.

I personally think it's safe to say that if there are some Repubs that won't vote for a black guy, there are some Dems that also won't vote for a black guy. It's easy to change your party affiliation, and both parties have lots of people with quite a mix of issue stances. For example - this year a bunch of Repubs supposedly registered democrat just to vote for Hillary, and bump "the black guy" out of the race. Do you think THOSE "Democrats" might... be... racist?

(I believe Rush L promoted this practice, as it's not illegal)

[megadeth425]

Possibly. But the idea of voting for Hillary went deeper than that. For one, everyone was panicking over the race; it was close, between two popular candidates with very dedicated bases, and people felt it would tear the Democrats apart. Limbaugh wanted to keep that running. Then there's the ads Hillary kept running about the 3 AM phone calls and stuff.
And, of course, the off-chance Hillary wins, because as much as people are afraid Obama may repel some white voters (as he did in West Virginia), he's rallying minorities, young people, apathetic voters, and even courting Republicans. Republicans kept him out because he's black, but not out of racism; because they know a black nominee will probably more than offset the people who won't vote for him because he's black.

[shawmutt]

I think the Dems who won't vote for him because he's black will be offset by the Reps who won't vote for Palin because she's a woman.

[tPA]

The major problem with this country is that it's full of whiners. Half the world's population lives on less than two dollars a day. Even with things "as bad as they are now", we are still able to afford to be on the Internet, for one example of our wealth.

I'd vote for whoever I thought was going to do the best job for this country. I voted for Nader in '00 even though I knew I was "throwing away my vote". Skin color doesn't matter one bit to me. If the primaries and polls are any indication, it doesn't matter to a whole lot of people.

I really agree with your assessment about the mood of the country. We have an entire generation raised by Mr. Rogers (who was no doubt a great man---a kind, caring, humble member of society), with the message being "You are special just by being you," not "You are special by working hard and making yourself special." Worthless self-esteem. So now, things get a little tight, and people whine about gas prices (when they are exorbitantly more in other places); they whine because they can't afford to go on holiday in the Caribbean, when the locals who live there can't afford to eat most days; they whine about the rising costs of groceries and entertainment when there are millions of people who've never even seen a TV let alone heard of Applebee's.

I'm no Gramm-ite, but he sure was right when he said we are a nation of whiners.

Instant gratification is the mantra, and selfish pursuit of happiness is the M.O.

No wonder people hate us---it's not Bush's fault, I can tell you that much.

[Shamantiks]

tPA I couldn't disagree much more. You are trivializing the absolutely massive financial crisis taking place in the entire world this month. People whining because their entertainment costs are going up? Try... the entire collapse of our global financial system, which is mostly faith-based and backed by nothing substantial like gold or silver.

The banks have been closing or getting seized by the government. All real real estate prices have collapsed. The price of gold, silver, metals, houses, stocks, and everything else has collapsed. The whole world economy has come to an immediate grinding halt. Russia has been freezing their stock market, and now there is talk of halting ALL global stock markets.

And yes, it's more Bush's fault than any other single person on earth. What other individual would you blame more than him? Let's hear a name. Bill Clinton left our country with the highest amount of cash surplus in history. Now we have a record deficit. Bush has done to the country exactly what he did to Texas, where you live - he squandered tons of cash, drove an oil rig bankrupt (how do you lose money drilling oil??), bought a football team, and executed a ton of people on death row.

Our financial problems are catastrophic and it was caused by Iraq, de-regulation by the Republican party, corruption, and greed.

These points are all aside from the fact that we still have alot more than most other countries - I still agree with that point.

[Sonart]

.

tPA I couldn't disagree much more. You are trivializing the absolutely massive financial crisis taking place in the entire world this month.

It's all they have, Shamantiks. 8 years ago conservatives triumphantly - and narrowly - defeated the heir apparent to the most popular U.S. President since FDR - Bill Clinton.

Given complete control of our government, conservatives finally had the chance to demonstrate the superiority of their values and ideas. Alas, years later it is dramatically and painfully obvious that conservatives have fuqued up our beloved country from one end to the other.

So what else CAN he say but that things aren't so bad and we're just a bunch of whiners. Hey, it could always be worse...

[lsbskins1]

All the other crap aside, I would like to address the core assumption that for liberals and progressives, the agenda must be the same as it is for convervatives. You offer a false dichotomy.

Democrats aren't idealist idiots, they are principled and long suffering. I would say that they chose based on the idea that their answers are better and more factually based and that Obama best represented both their ideals and the change people would want when the time came to pull the lever in the voting booth. It was neither cynical, nor idiotic. It was based on adherence to the principle that someone should be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin and that winning or losing should be done based on winning the wars of ideas, not on appealing to the lowest common denominator.

In the primaries, I favored John Edwards in the beginning. I liked his message of economic justice. He dropped out before my state held it's primaries. I voted for Hillary Clinton because I felt she would be the better fighter. But she lost, and now I completely and honestly support Obama, and believe the people made a better and more viable choice than I had given them credit for. I believe this because given the meltdown that has happened in the economy,and peoples desire to alter the track, Obama is more viable as a "winner" because it would be much harder for Clinton to represent herself as a change agent. So, I reject your core assumption that there are only two rational answers to your question. The real answer is that democrats believe the "truth will out" and made a choice based on principle and not ideological foolishness.

[Shamantiks]

So what else CAN he say but that things aren't so bad and we're just a bunch of whiners. Hey, it could always be worse...

And that about wraps it up in a nutshell with a Fox bowtie. That's what I hear from every conservative sensationalist - "It can always get worse! Quit yer bitching you vermin liberals". Maybe if we had bought more American flags made in China and put them on our Buicks that Bush said we didn't need to cut back on gas on, because it's our "Way of life".

I just hope the obvious current reality and recent history actually wakes up some of the conservatives in our country. If you are truly patriotic, voting and fighting against our current administration and their policies seems the only path to restore our country to what it used to be not so long ago, and what it represented to the world. Even if that means rooting against the home team.

[grandpa]

And that about wraps it up in a nutshell with
a Fox bowtie.
That's what I hear from every conservative sensationalist - "It can
always get worse!..."

True, but they always leave a few things out. For instance, things could always be better. Or how about the fact that the system makes things worse? That's almost impossible to deny, if we're even vaguely honest.

Grandpa h.