h1

Why vote Obama? Picture the presidential debates.

February 5, 2008
YOUNG OLD
EXCITING BORING
INSPIRATIONAL GRUMPY
NEWCOMER ESTABLISHMENT
KENNEDY NIXON
AGAINST WAR FOR WAR
Advertisements

No comments yet

  1. It’s Kennedy vs. Nixon all over again.


  2. It is hard to tell from your photographs but it also looks like there is a difference in their skin tones. I don’t think anyone else has noticed that. I certainly haven’t heard anything about that in the media.


  3. Yeah, that’s the obvious one. And depending on who you ask, it’ll either swing the election one way or the other. Me, I think it’s a non-issue. If there are voters who are too prejudiced to vote for a black man, there are an equal number of voters to whom the idea appeals a whole lot–both black folks themselves, those who think it will represent a positive social change, and those who want to convince themselves that they aren’t prejudiced.


  4. So you think Obama will beat Hillary? I hope so. I would be happy to never have another Bush or Clinton in the Whitehouse… even to visit.


  5. I’m hoping he’ll beat her. I know I’m planning to vote for him in the Wisconsin primary on the 19th.


  6. The undercurrent from the media and the Democrats is blatantly racist and sexist, as they pronounce that one way or another, history will be made. In other words, it’s either going to be the black guy or the chick. So in their minds, “making history” is the priority; running the country is a distant second.


  7. Help me out, here. How does pointing out the historic nature of the two candidacies equate to racism? It will either be the black guy or the woman. That’s a genuinely historic event, either way. How is merely pointing that out racist or sexist?


  8. I just don’t understand why it needs to be “pointed out” at all. Who cares? Let’s just get the best qualified person in office to run the country.


  9. No woman or black person has ever been the nominee for either party. Either condition would be historic, but we have both at the same time. Not only that, but national polls are showing that whichever one of them actually gets that nomination will be the next president.

    All this and you just don’t understand why news organizations feel the need to report on it?

    What’s really bothering you, man? It can’t be that.


  10. “Let’s just get the best qualified person in office to run the country.”

    I agree, it should be Romney!

    (Just want to shake up this Obama love fest)


  11. You do realize Romney implemented “Hillarycare” in Massachusetts right? I mean it’s really the exact same thing. Freaky to watch him demonize her plan knowing that in his last executive job he did the exact same thing.


  12. >What’s really bothering you, man? It can’t be that.

    My pants are itchy.


  13. Look, I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but you charged in here ranting about sexism and racism. When I pointed out that there is absolutely nothing weird about news organizations reporting on the historic nature of both the Clinton and Obama candidacies this election year, you suddenly have nothing much more to say. Just to clear the air, let me ask you this: do you see my point? Are you retracting your racism and sexism charges against the media?


  14. Okay, here’s my problem. “Making history” either by gender or race is more symbolic, feel-good nonsense. I want substance in a candidate and I don’t see it in either Obama – who gives uplifting, motivational, and inspirational speeches – or Hillary – who is married to a President and cries at the drop of a hat.

    I’m tired of all this symbolism. And if it’s wrapped in a fervent reminder that “America will soon make history by voting for the first female President or the first African-American President,” then it’s clearly gender-biased or racially-biased. So while most equate “racism” or “sexism” with a negative connotation, many in the media and Democratic wing are using it for a positive connotation. But it’s still racism and sexism.


  15. a fervent reminder that “America will soon make history by voting for the first female President or the first African-American President,” then it’s clearly gender-biased or racially-biased.

    I’m having a hard time equating even a “fervent reminder” that history is being made by these two campaigns as “bias” of some sort. You seem to think reporting on this historic nature of these campaigns equates to a media bias in favor of their campaigns, and that since this alleged bias is “gender-based” and “racially-based,” it is therefore “racism” and “sexism.”

    If I have your position right, I can only say that I’m utterly bewildered by it. Do you believe it’s newsworthy that we are witnessing the first viable female candidate for president in the history of our country? Do you agree that it’s newsworthy that we’re witnessing the first viable black candidate for president in the history of our country? Do you agree that it’s newsworthy that we’re looking at the first black or female nominee for president in the history of the Republican or Democratic parties? If you agree that these things are newsworthy, then how should they be reported on such that the reporting doesn’t constitute racism and sexism? How would such reporting look different than what you’re seeing today? And if you don’t agree that these things are newsworthy, then I flatly suggest that you do not know what the term newsworthy actually means.

    Me, I think what’s going on here is simple. There’s no bias or racism or sexism–you just don’t like either of these candidates, and it makes you mad that they get even a drop of ink for the historic nature of their campaigns.

    To that I say: tough.


  16. […] on the presidential race, Scott Feldstein sums up his thoughts on the upcoming race in two pictures and 11 […]


  17. Scott, I see both your points and the Pelican’s. You don’t have to ridcule. Your point is obvious, it is newsworthy. His point is that it is often the FOCUS to the point where their actual platforms are summed up as ‘historic gender or race’ rather than actual positions. Obama particularly seems to have no specifics. ‘Love your children and provide them the chance to succeed because they are not getting it now…’ would be great. If his policy is the same old, same old, Democratic policy of sending more money it won’t help and he would be a typical politician with an extra side of charisma. Educrats in the union find some way to spend most of the money on themselves and I see no reason that would change without specifics. The candidates themselves may or may not have specific policies in mind for most topics, but the main media discussion is black or female? Unfortunately, a large contingent of people never watch the debates or look things up on-line, they listen to the media discussions and the smear commercials because that is the easiest for them to do… sort of sad.


  18. It’s odd that you would compare Obama to Kennedy as they had such opposite stances on the major issues.

    Obama wants taxes raised across the board, Kennedy was the author of the largest tax cut in the past 60 years.
    Obama says total withdrawal from Iraq, and no unilateral military action, Kennedy invaded Cuba and got us involved in Vietnam to stand against communism
    Obama stands to raise tax on business and reduce defense spending. Kennedy lowered business taxes to spur growth and increased military spending.

    And that’s just a few major points. It seems to me that, at least on the issues, McCain is more in line with Kennedy. Now, if all that really matters is having an exciting and inspirational leader, then I suppose Obama is your man. In that case, of course (invoking Godwin’s Law on Nazi references….my apologies to the whole internet), we could mention a German leader who was exciting and inspirational and failed to really spell out his policies for the people. “Freiheit und Brot “(Freedom and Bread) was his slogan……way different from “Change we can believe in” I suppose.

    And before anyone blows a gasket, I am just pointing out that unspecified change is not always a desireable outcome. I do not think Obama is Hitler.


  19. […] This “Obama is Kennedy” thing seems to be happening all over. At first, I saw it on a small scale recently ,(though I admit I have not been paying overly much attention up till now. I really assumed it […]


  20. Please no Kennedy again Vote Mccain if you dont want to give the USA over to terrorist


  21. Thanks, Deb, for summing up the entirety of the GOP election strategy for 2008.


  22. I’m noticing people saying that Obama is just eloquent and inspirational, nothing more. But the truth, looking at history as well, change doesn’t start with these candidates or political leaders. It starts with the people. And I believe that if Obama can inspire the people, the change can turn into whatever change we desire, not “unspecified”. The man isn’t just trying to win us over with his words, but he’s trying to form a movement–unrelated to the establishment.


  23. Should say liberal, anti american, won’t put his hand over his heart for the pledge, socialist, expect me to believe he never heard his preacher of 20 yrs say anything anti american, no history of bi partisanship, tows the dem line, will not unite, most liberal in the senate, wife who is not proud of her country and can’t forget a RACIST!!


  24. Yeah, but just try to fit that on a bumper sticker!

    (Sheesh! Somebody needs to break the little pills in half tomorrow!)


  25. Obama has < 150 days in any political office and you’d hand the leadership of the free world over to an amuetur? He presents nothing new that Clinton [Bill] didn’t bring in his campaign. Obama can speak well, that’s good however I want impromptu capabilities, not some word processing factory. I’ve yet to see the man speak without a teleprompter.

    When people tell me “McCain is too old” I respond with “well, Obama is too black.” Yeah, they get all aghasted, but then I remind them they are discriminating on age, why stop there when there’s so many other things you can discriminate on. One of my wife’s friends said “I’m voting for Obama because he’s young like Kennedy.” I thought I’d get her goat and told you “I’m voting for McCain, because he’s a white man like Kennedy.” That shut her pie whole up.

    Oh, and let’s not forget reality… McCain and Kennedy were actually best buddies that worked on NUMEROUS bills together, whereby Obama probably never even shook Kennedy’s hand!

    Obama will lose the election, that’s my prediction. I’m not a big McCain supporter, but he gets my vote. I want someone at the helm that has as MUCH experience as can be mustered. Between these two men, McCain wins hands down without a thought.


  26. To THE FAMILY GUY:

    You’re absolutely right about Kennedy [John]. JFK was brilliant in his own ways, but compare JFK to today’s liberal democrate and you’d swear you were looking at Rush Limbaugh. Democrates from yesteryear are certainly a far cry more conservative, centered, moral, and directed than ANYTHING I’ve seen today. Democrates today have no moral compass, no domestic direction, etc.

    McCain is looking at bringing alternative energies to this country and on the market, Obama says NO to all of them. I know I know I know.. the “campaign ad” called Obama “Dr. No.” Fact is, I noticed that pattern long before the ad hit the boobtube.

    Next year, first and second quarter of ’09, you’ll see two things hit the market that will change the energy world forever, for the better, and probably cause a world war in the mean time. (hint, google on ‘super battery’ and go checkout http://www.nanasolar.com).

    These are technologies partially funded by the Department of Energy’s innovation funds, which was supported by McCain and voted against by Obama. Sure, McCain didn’t know what kind of isoquantic leaps would come out of this investment, but at least he had the foresite to put the money there.

    You can vote McCain, or vote against Obama… either way, we all win.


  27. How many days did G. W. have in political office, Bryan? I’m sure you know the answer to that–and I’m sure that whatever it is, it’s leagues and miles beyond what Obama has had. Right?

    C’mon. Let’s discuss what you really don’t like about him, not just make shit up that sort of sounds good.

    I’ve yet to see the man speak without a teleprompter.

    You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    When people tell me “McCain is too old” I respond with “well, Obama is too black.”

    McCain’s age is a legitimate issue in this election. Is he still sharp enough to do the job? What are the odds of his dying or becoming significantly debilitated during the next four years? These are not irrelevant questions. They care completely legitimate. Discussions of Obama’s blackness are not legitimate, as they don’t really have anything to do with his ability to do the job.

    Obama will lose the election, that’s my prediction.

    Now I know you’re on drugs. Listen, want to make me a bet about the election? If McCain wins–or loses by less than 5 points in the popular vote–I’ll pay you $100. If he loses by more than 5 points, you pay me $50. Deal?

    You’re living in a fantasy world if you think American politics–or Democrats as a whole–have taken a big step to the left. You’ve been listening to too much talk radio, I think. The fact is, American politics have taken leaps and bounds to the right. Ford or Nixon would be a Democrat today. Neither man could get a Republican nomination today and you know it. Meanwhile, we have Bill Clinton–a moderate Democrat by any sane definition.


  28. Seems like a good bet. Baracks attempt to blow smoke over his liberal politics by skewing right is having the effect of lowering his poll numbers and making his far-left base furious. He seems to be taking all sides of every issue now, though he is doing so rather ham-handedly. Bill Clinton, in contrast, was a master at populist politics. Obama made some very concrete statements, and is now back peddling as fast as he can….and his hard left allies are getting angrier by the day.

    As far as experience goes, Obama truly has none. A few years as a state senator and 1/3 of a term in the Senate (a seat he won in a virtually un-opposed election) is rather less than than a stunning resume…..even less stunning since he produced nothing of substance while in DC. Bush spent four years as a governor and was re-elected in a landslide against a popular oponent….perhaps leading one to believe that the people liked the job he had done as Governor. Bush worked with both parties and was very popular among Latino voters (he even speaks spanish). Obama does not share that popularity or bi-partisan spirit and may be one of the most polarizing political figures of modern times. The very fact that he is now running even the polls with an opponent who is not well loved among the voters of his own party belies his precarious position. The fawning of the media over their new Messiah, and the imbalanced coverage they give “The Barack” has still not been enough for the win.


  29. Obama is steering toward the middle, yes. It makes some liberals squawk, yes. But there’s absolutely nothing new about that story. In fact, that’s precisely what we see McCain doing, and it pisses off conservatives. BFD. Pot calling the kettle black and all that.


  30. We see people like Obama and McCaine and can’t really decide on who will be the3 better president. All I ask in a president is that you believe in the true American dream, and bring back all troops from Iraq. Can McCaine? Can Obama? Or can no one do this for America and revive Bush’s stupidity to bring back our families, homes, and lives?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: