Clinton conceding tonight

[Zanchief]

ANY voting populace.

People are morons, everywhere.

This is hardly an American issue.

Well I may not be as big a pessimist as you, but that wasn't really my point (or Tikkers either).

Just look at how everyone "discusses" politics here. They don't defend their position, they denounce the other one. This is likely because there's only really two viable options right now too choose from. You're either a crazy hippy liberal, or you're a fascist rightwing conservative.

[Eziekial]

oh really?

[Narrock]

ANY voting populace.

People are morons, everywhere.

This is hardly an American issue.

Well I may not be as big a pessimist as you, but that wasn't really my point (or Tikkers either).

Just look at how everyone "discusses" politics here. They don't defend their position, they denounce the other one. This is likely because there's only really two viable options right now too choose from. You're either a crazy hippy liberal, or you're a fascist rightwing conservative.

McCain is a phony conservative. "Republican" and "Conservative" are no longer synonymous terms, but you are correct about labeling liberals as being crazy.

[Evermore]

McCain is a phony conservative. "Republican" and "Conservative" are no longer synonymous terms, but you are correct about labeling conservatives as being crazy.

fixt

[Narrock]

McCain is a phony conservative. "Republican" and "Conservative" are no longer synonymous terms, but you are correct about labeling conservatives as being crazy.

fixt

[Lueyen]

Obama supporters have a really solid justification for being annoyed with Clinton supporters who would rather vote for someone else besides Obama because Clinton didn't get the nomination. Obama and Clinton represented nearly identical policy their voting records are very close (80 to 90 percent) the same. In a matter of policy and substance they represented pretty much the same thing with little difference. That is the reason for the mudslinging in the primaries, as it's kinda hard to differentiate from one another when at the heart of most issues you agree with each other. Yes there are subtle differences between the two, but all in all if you support one based on their stances on the issues, the subtle differences shouldn't make that much of a difference.

[brinstar]

agreed lue

[Arlos]

We liberals are da KWAAAYZIEST peoples.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

Obama supporters have a really solid justification for being annoyed with Clinton supporters who would rather vote for someone else besides Obama because Clinton didn't get the nomination. Obama and Clinton represented nearly identical policy their voting records are very close (80 to 90 percent) the same. In a matter of policy and substance they represented pretty much the same thing with little difference. That is the reason for the mudslinging in the primaries, as it's kinda hard to differentiate from one another when at the heart of most issues you agree with each other. Yes there are subtle differences between the two, but all in all if you support one based on their stances on the issues, the subtle differences shouldn't make that much of a difference.

agree 100%. I just think that if you were going to sling mud at an opponent of the same basic stance, sling it at the 10% they don't agree with you on, not on some crazy media driven hearsay like 'omg he's a muslim' or 'omg he hates america where's his lapel pin' - you expect that from an opposing party, but in a primary where you're in the end both trying to accomplish the same goal, it's probably a good idea to kind of tone that down.

[Eziekial]

In what parallel universe do the majority of American Voters choose who they vote for based on how the candidate stands on the issues???

The entire democratic primary was a character fight. Hell, even in the debates Hillary and Obama directly mentioned that this will be about character and "electability" which is a catch-all for all the intangibles that go into any high profile public race. Age, ethnicity, "connection to the voters" which Obama apparently lacks when it comes to the mid-western states, appearance, etc. everything but the issues. The worst thing Obama can do is make this an "issue" election and try to go toe-to-toe with McCain on policy. He got this far running a beauty contest and he would be best served by keeping it that way.

[Zanchief]

The worst thing Obama can do is make this an "issue" election and try to go toe-to-toe with McCain on policy. He got this far running a beauty contest and he would be best served by keeping it that way.

Well that's pretty condescending.

[Gypsiyee]

I disagree - I mean, charisma has certainly helped him up to this point, there's no denying that.. but for every dumbass electing someone based on appearance, you also have people voting for someone because of their stance. I won't vote for Obama based on his appearance or his ability to give a speech, I'll vote for him based on the fact that I agree with him on the majority of his views.

To assume that everyone is voting for him based on his charisma is an insult to those who do care about the issues during this election and it's an insult to his intelligence and the campaign he's run. He's been very smart about the way he's responded to negativity and very smart about the way he's spent his money and time.. like him or not, there is no denying that his group has run a smart campaign. To say that it's all based on a beauty contest is a discredit to that.

[Arlos]

Indeed, I think that he would most stand to GAIN by making it an all-out fight over policy.

What is McCain offering, basically? 4 more years of Bush and Bush's policies, just with a different face. I dunno if you've looked at the poll numbers recently, but even if you don't completely believe them, the fact that 2/3 of every poll says they're unhappy with him must have SOME weight to it, methinks.

Obama, on the other hand, is espousing very different policy positions from Bush & McCain. So, since people obviously are sick of Bush policy, why wouldn't they listen with great interest to someone who is offering DIFFERENT policy?

-Arlos

[Eziekial]

Let me clarify.
I was not trying to be condescending about Obama. I was remarking on what gets people elected in this country. I did not insinuate that every Obama vote is about his charisma and anyone that agrees with his policy is an airhead; I am speaking in general electability terms.

Arlos, the town hall meetings will be a farce and no issues will be covered. McCain is not a push over and is clearly no fool so why go there if you don't have to? Why do you think McCain sent the letter to Obama and not the other way around? Obama has the initiative, he has the media support and the hype is overly positive. He dumped the idiot pastor and has remained relatively scandal free. Making this an issues fight may derail that. Why risk it? Why stand around and let McCain get free press off you and take potshots (which you all know he will) and risk looking bad or putting your foot in your mouth? The best course of action for Obama is stay the course. Keep giving stump speeches before rock concerts. Go on Oprah and Leno and SNL. Call McCain Bush version 3.0, smile and wave. If he does that, he wins in November.
I'm not saying this is the way it should be or it's the right thing to do. I would love to see an honest policy debate between them but it's just not going to happen unless Obama drops in the polls. If he stays ahead he should just smile and wave and start picking candidates for his cabinet.

[Arlos]

I wasn't in any way aware you were talking about actual in-person debates between the two of them. I was speaking on a more abstract level, about what the campaigns would be doing. I have no thoughts one way or another on an actual head-to-head debate, actually. Mainly the reason is that, especially given the last Democratic debate, the networks running it turn it into a farce, going on and on about utterly nonsensical and irrelevant topics, rather than engaging in a nuts & bolts examination of policy positions and plans, which is what I'd actually like to see. Therefore, since no debate ever will be substantive, given our current media's inability to realize that some people have attention spans longer than gnats, I don't see there much call or cause to have ANY debates.

As for the broader campaign, however, it would be very much to Obama's advantage to turn the media war into one over issues. Right now, as I said, the public is VERY tired of Bush's policies on pretty much everything. Since McCain's policies are extremely similar in a variety of areas, it is highly to the Obama campaign's benefit to call attention to that fact, and to how their own differ.

-Arlos

[Eziekial]

Exactly. We are in accord then. Mark your calenders people.

[Kramer]

i wonder if Bush is thinking "hey drop a nuke on Iran real quick before this whole President thing is over"

ftw.

[Harrison]

Israel will do it before we will.

We'll just give them the thumbs up.