obama and mccain...one and the same?

decides2dream

i see it mentioned again and again, so i just have to ask....seriously...do many of you think they are one and the same? that it won't make one iota of a difference to the country, to the world, if either get elected? they will both enact the exact same policies, both follow the exact same choices in regards to the war, etc? truly?

so really, it makes zero difference if you vote obama or mccain, b/c the same results will occur with either presidency? i just don't see it. you want to say they are more similar than dissimilar in comparison to nader, fair enough to have that opinion...but to say that basically they will result in the same presidency and affect the country/world in the same way.....i just don't believe it, at all.


and i am not at all suggesting voting for the lesser of two evils or any such BS, just truly curious b/c i see this bandied about a LOT here. neither are any ralph nader, and for some of us, that's a good thing...and thus the choices we will make, whether voting mccain, obama, writing in another candidate, whatever......i just can't believe that people truly believe their presidencies would result in the same outcomes, at all.

cincybearcat

Dude ... one is a young half black man...the other is an old 100% white dude...they're nothing alike

AtlantaJammer

Obama is a terrorist. But I dont like the other choice much better. Im just scared if Obama isnt elected Ed might say fuck it any never play another show again. Im torn...

dontloseyourheat

Obviously there are differences but what I think people are pointing out is that have similar stances on some of the major issues.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,6980359,full.story

acutejam

WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121668579909472083.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

But here lies [Obama's] essential contradiction: His campaign is more cultural than political. He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office. To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama's political invisibility -- a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions -- may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.

Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him? His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste.

John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.

Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas. He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.

clark_kent

decides2dream wrote:

i see it mentioned again and again, so i just have to ask....seriously...do many of you think they are one and the same? that it won't make one iota of a difference to the country, to the world, if either get elected? they will both enact the exact same policies, both follow the exact same choices in regards to the war, etc? truly?

so really, it makes zero difference if you vote obama or mccain, b/c the same results will occur with either presidency? i just don't see it. you want to say they are more similar than dissimilar in comparison to nader, fair enough to have that opinion...but to say that basically they will result in the same presidency and affect the country/world in the same way.....i just don't believe it, at all.


and i am not at all suggesting voting for the lesser of two evils or any such BS, just truly curious b/c i see this bandied about a LOT here. neither are any ralph nader, and for some of us, that's a good thing...and thus the choices we will make, whether voting mccain, obama, writing in another candidate, whatever......i just can't believe that people truly believe their presidencies would result in the same outcomes, at all.

i said this same thing in 2000 about bush and gore. i could not have been more wrong. there is no way we would be at war with iraq if al gore had been elected.

anyone who truly believes this is deluded.

Thecure

for me there are great differences between Obama and McCain but i will always say that when either one is president the same stuff will happen as when GWB was president. i don't believe that the president has as much power as people think. i see america still being in Iraq, i still see america paying at the pump. i still see you having a housing crisis, i still see banks getting federal grants to save their asses (and in all honesty saving people asses), I still see jobs being lost, i still see you having more free trade agreements. i still see you having the same health care system.

who knows i could be wrong?

slightofjeff

This is a bit off topic, but a post earlier in this thread made me wonder:

What the fuck is Obama doing in the Middle East? Does he not realize they don't have a vote in the upcoming election?

I've just never heard of this before ... a candidate for political office fucking around overseas in the middle of a campaign. Maybe it's happened before, just without the glorious fanfare that Barry's latest vacation has, so we weren't all that aware of it.

It just seems really weird to me. Is he trying to play pretend president? I don't get it. And I'm not *really* trying to bash him here. I just don't understand what he's trying to accomplish.

blackredyellow

slightofjeff wrote:

This is a bit off topic, but a post earlier in this thread made me wonder:

What the fuck is Obama doing in the Middle East? Does he not realize they don't have a vote in the upcoming election?

I've just never heard of this before ... a candidate for political office fucking around overseas in the middle of a campaign. Maybe it's happened before, just without the glorious fanfare that Barry's latest vacation has, so we weren't all that aware of it.

It just seems really weird to me. Is he trying to play pretend president? I don't get it. And I'm not *really* trying to bash him here. I just don't understand what he's trying to accomplish.

I get the middle east trip... He's trying to get first hand knowledge about what is going on there, and talking with leaders of those countries will help him in developing policy for the election, and if anything give him more foreign policy "experience".

What makes no sense to me is that he has pretty much campaign speeches planned in europe.

fuck

Thecure wrote:

for me there are great differences between Obama and McCain but i will always say that when either one is president the same stuff will happen as when GWB was president. i don't believe that the president has as much power as people think. i see america still being in Iraq, i still see america paying at the pump. i still see you having a housing crisis, i still see banks getting federal grants to save their asses (and in all honesty saving people asses), I still see jobs being lost, i still see you having more free trade agreements. i still see you having the same health care system.

who knows i could be wrong?

The President has plenty of power, it's just that neither of these guys gives a shit enough to actually do some REAL change... :rolleyes:

RainDog

slightofjeff wrote:

This is a bit off topic, but a post earlier in this thread made me wonder:

What the fuck is Obama doing in the Middle East? Does he not realize they don't have a vote in the upcoming election?

I've just never heard of this before ... a candidate for political office fucking around overseas in the middle of a campaign. Maybe it's happened before, just without the glorious fanfare that Barry's latest vacation has, so we weren't all that aware of it.

It just seems really weird to me. Is he trying to play pretend president? I don't get it. And I'm not *really* trying to bash him here. I just don't understand what he's trying to accomplish.

McCain travelled there back in March. It was in the news, but not as much as the Democratic primary going on at the time. A shame, too, because so much bad press could have come from it - especially if you compare it to Obama's trip now (and it's not too late for that). Case in point - Obama goes to Iraq, and Malaki basically - and publiclly - agrees with Obama's withdraw proposal. McCain goes to Iraq, and travelling companion Joe Lieberman needs to correct him - on camera - about the different factions in the area, specifically about their relationship with Iran.

Also, don't forget, McCain publically dared Obama to go to Iraq. I'm sure it was meant to be a "trap" of sorts. Basically saying "why not go over there and see where you're wrong and I'm right" - being that the pre-established narrative is that anything that brings attention to foreign policy or the war will only favor McCain. Plus, Obama might make a "mistake" (which is the primary reason the media is following him, if you ask me - to catch that "mistake") and blow his whole campaign to pieces. Basically, the whole thing has gone off the opposite as expected and the trap went off in McCain's face. Obama now "Looks Presidential."

And that's pretty much why Obama's over there right now - research and to "Look Presidential." So what if people Middle East don't get a vote (except for the U.S. soldiers, of course)? With modern media, the footage gets to U.S. voters just as fast as if it was being beamed nationally out of Iowa.

decides2dream

dontloseyourheat wrote:

Obviously there are differences but what I think people are pointing out is that have similar stances on some of the major issues.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,6980359,full.story

my question is though, does one truly believe there won't be sany difference in office with either candidate? similarities or not, i think their differences are significant enough that there would be very different outcomes with either as president. of course, that's just imo.

clark_kent wrote:

i said this same thing in 2000 about bush and gore. i could not have been more wrong. there is no way we would be at war with iraq if al gore had been elected.

anyone who truly believes this is deluded.

i never understood people who thought THAt either, at all. i thought they were sooooooo different, and voted accordingly. however, that's my point....and i just don't get it.



and yes, that's my thought exactly.
i think they would both make very different presidents, and have very different influence on our country, the world.

Thecure

_outlaw wrote:

The President has plenty of power, it's just that neither of these guys gives a shit enough to actually do some REAL change... :rolleyes:

tell me what the president could do about any issue that i raised in my post. health care, housing, the war, gas prices, banks failing?

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

i think they would both make very different presidents, and have very different influence on our country, the world.

I do admit that individuals can be very close on the particular stances, and yet as people, and communicators/leaders/diplomats, etc. they can be dramatically different vibes and lead in very diverse directions on all kinds of subjects. People are way beyond their chosen stance at any given moment in time. So while I've often honed in on particulars, that is about the limits of debating with logic from an individual perspective.

Ultimately, when it comes to major world events, they will appear as fated...for example, whatever wars are headed into, or out of...given the circumstances at the time, and the general mindsets of the people being represented, and the pros/cons, there will ultimately appear to be only one answer at any given time, whether it is answered by Obama or McCain, or whomever.

Its Evolution Baby

acutejam wrote:

WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121668579909472083.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

But here lies [Obama's] essential contradiction: His campaign is more cultural than political. He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office. To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama's political invisibility -- a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions -- may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.

Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him? His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste.

John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.

Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas. He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.

I'm not saying that there aren't some valid points in this op-ed piece but you do know you quoted from the Wall Street Journal who is the biggest conservative newspaper out there.

It would be like going to the Huffington Post to get information about McCain.

fuck

Thecure wrote:

tell me what the president could do about any issue that i raised in my post. health care, housing, the war, gas prices, banks failing?

The President assigns positions to HANDLE those cases. Do you not know what a cabinet is? Not to mention that he'd be working with Congress (I assume, but maybe not) to pass laws to handle these issues.

If you really think that the president can't do anything, then I suggest you learn more about how the American government has been working lately.

clark_kent

decides2dream wrote:

i never understood people who thought THAt either, at all. i thought they were sooooooo different, and voted accordingly. however, that's my point....and i just don't get it.

and yes, that's my thought exactly.
i think they would both make very different presidents, and have very different influence on our country, the world.

in my defense, i was smoking a LOT of pot at the time which might explain some things around here...

clark_kent

Thecure wrote:

for me there are great differences between Obama and McCain but i will always say that when either one is president the same stuff will happen as when GWB was president. i don't believe that the president has as much power as people think. i see america still being in Iraq, i still see america paying at the pump. i still see you having a housing crisis, i still see banks getting federal grants to save their asses (and in all honesty saving people asses), I still see jobs being lost, i still see you having more free trade agreements. i still see you having the same health care system.

who knows i could be wrong?

i do think those could have been avoided had al gore been president instead of dubya. he would not have pushed for iraq war, that was all bush's baby. i truly feel the housing crisis and bank bailouts are a direct result of bush-driven fiscal policy... basically, encouraging that imaginary speculative wealth that the stock market creates. he relaxed every standard he could and eviscrated the tax code to ensure that the greedy could run wild. then it all blew up in their faces. it's not just a coincidence that the last time something like this happened was under reagan (bush's economic guiding light) with the s&l scandals. before that it was hoover, laissez-faire, and the great depression.

**side rant** fact of the matter is that the free market cannot regulate itself, it's a survival of the fittest game and the little people get crushed. the shit that wall street has been doing for the last decade is no different from your average con-man selling counterfeit goods on the street. they're hustlers, liars, and cheaters. but they wear suits and can manipulate and destroy people without ever having to look them in the eye or be held accoutnable.**

now, the president does have enormous power to set agendas. bush made tax cuts a priority when he got in and he got them. then he made wars a priority and he got them. whoever comes next will have the same power. if obama wants health care, he has the power to make something happen. if mccain wants 4 more years of bush policy, he can do it. there is a difference.

clark_kent

acutejam wrote:

WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121668579909472083.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

But here lies [Obama's] essential contradiction: His campaign is more cultural than political. He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office. To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama's political invisibility -- a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions -- may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.

Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him? His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste.

John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.

Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas. He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.

yeah, "principled leadership" has served us so well the last 8 years.

i'll take a thoughtful leader who's willing to put his personal beliefs aside to reflect the will of the american public over some gun-waving gospel-spouting psychopath any day.

acutejam

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I'm not saying that there aren't some valid points in this op-ed piece but you do know you quoted from the Wall Street Journal who is the biggest conservative newspaper out there.

It would be like going to the Huffington Post to get information about McCain.

Thanks. In fact, I did recognize exactly where the op-ed came from. I do know the bias involved. WSJ and the Economist are my mainstream feeds personally.

But I hope you're not suggesting we should only go to the NYT or Time magazine for critical commentary on Barack? Turns out I read those and HuffPo on occasion just for that reason -- critical commentary on the other side!

Agreed, some valid points in the op-ed -- I thought the cultural vs political compenent was simply fascinating, valid or not.

Thecure

_outlaw wrote:

The President assigns positions to HANDLE those cases. Do you not know what a cabinet is? Not to mention that he'd be working with Congress (I assume, but maybe not) to pass laws to handle these issues.

If you really think that the president can't do anything, then I suggest you learn more about how the American government has been working lately.

never said the president can't do anything but i did say that the president does not have as much power as people think. the president can only aprove what was passed from congress. that limits the amount of work that the president can complete. the only thing that the president has that make sthem powerful is the abilty to say no to everything. that is a major power, but it is up to congress to bring ideas to the table that will look good to the public. the congress has major power also as they can force the president to do thinsg that they would not want to do. but lets face it the congress now are cowards who vote for everything that GWB wants. i dont' see that changing, but that is my opinion.

fuck

Thecure wrote:

never said the president can't do anything but i did say that the president does not have as much power as people think. the president can only aprove what was passed from congress. that limits the amount of work that the president can complete. the only thing that the president has that make sthem powerful is the abilty to say no to everything. that is a major power, but it is up to congress to bring ideas to the table that will look good to the public. the congress has major power also as they can force the president to do thinsg that they would not want to do. but lets face it the congress now are cowards who vote for everything that GWB wants. i dont' see that changing, but that is my opinion.

that is true, but congress isn't the only one who brings ideas to the table, the cabinet members also do since they specifically work with that. I think the idea now is if Obama were president, then he would work with Congress to accomplish somethings, but since they haven't proved otherwise in the past 2 years, I just don't see it happened.

I hope I'm wrong though.

Vince

Thecure wrote:

for me there are great differences between Obama and McCain but i will always say that when either one is president the same stuff will happen as when GWB was president. i don't believe that the president has as much power as people think. i see america still being in Iraq, i still see america paying at the pump. i still see you having a housing crisis, i still see banks getting federal grants to save their asses (and in all honesty saving people asses), I still see jobs being lost, i still see you having more free trade agreements. i still see you having the same health care system.

who knows i could be wrong?

If you fail to recognize the two other branches of government and the Constitution as the Bush Administration has for the past 7.5 years then yes the Executive branch is very powerful.

my2hands

decides2dream wrote:

i just can't believe that people truly believe their presidencies would result in the same outcomes, at all.

thats probabaly because there are obvious huge differences between them and the direction of the country the next 8 years...


these are the same folks that said Gore was the same as Bush :rolleyes:

acutejam

Vince wrote:

If you fail to recognize the two other branches of government and the Constitution as the Bush Administration has for the past 7.5 years then yes the Executive branch is very powerful.

Can you blame him? Districts are rigged and Judiciary is appointed -- they don't represent the people that elected Bush. Perhaps it's very similar to his initial impressions/attitude toward the press, when questioned about reports he doesn't watch or read the news ... which I thought were spot on!


And the reporter then said: Well, how do you then know, Mr. President, what the public is thinking? And Bush, without missing a beat said: You’re making a powerful assumption, young man. You’re assuming that you represent the public. I don’t accept that.

Which is a powerful statement. And if Bush believes it (a possibility not to be dismissed) then we must credit the president with an original idea, or the germ of one. Bush’s people have developed it into a thesis:

We don’t accept that [the press] have a check and balance function. We think that they are in the game of “Gotcha.” Oh, they're interested in headlines, and interested in conflict. They're not interested in having a serious discussion… and exploring things.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/04/25/bush_muscle.html

clark_kent

acutejam wrote:

Can you blame him? Districts are rigged and Judiciary is appointed -- they don't represent the people that elected Bush. Perhaps it's very similar to his initial impressions/attitude toward the press, when questioned about reports he doesn't watch or read the news ... which I thought were spot on!


And the reporter then said: Well, how do you then know, Mr. President, what the public is thinking? And Bush, without missing a beat said: You’re making a powerful assumption, young man. You’re assuming that you represent the public. I don’t accept that.

Which is a powerful statement. And if Bush believes it (a possibility not to be dismissed) then we must credit the president with an original idea, or the germ of one. Bush’s people have developed it into a thesis:

We don’t accept that [the press] have a check and balance function. We think that they are in the game of “Gotcha.” Oh, they're interested in headlines, and interested in conflict. They're not interested in having a serious discussion… and exploring things.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/04/25/bush_muscle.html

according to the popular vote, the electoral college that put bush in the house doesnt represent the american people either.

if the press don't play a part, why are they mentioned in the very first amendment to the constitution? if not for the press, we'd all still think there are wmd's in iraq.

Its Evolution Baby

my2hands wrote:

thats probabaly because there are obvious huge differences between them the directionof the country the next 8 years...


these are the same folks that said Gore was the same as Bush :rolleyes:

Thats a key point.

How can Nader Supporters convince Obama supporters that hes really the same as McCain when they ran the same campaign in 2000 with Bush and Gore and were clearly wrong.

clark_kent

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Thats a key point.

How can Nader Supporters convince Obama supporters that hes really the same as McCain when they ran the same campaign in 2000 with Bush and Gore and were clearly wrong.

reality doesn't have much of an effect on them.

decides2dream

my2hands wrote:

thats probabaly because there are obvious huge differences between them and the direction of the country the next 8 years...


these are the same folks that said Gore was the same as Bush :rolleyes:

the thing is, i don't have a problem with people not liking either candidate, not wanting to vote for either candidate, etc. it's all good. vote who best represents your ideals, what you want to see happen and all of it. my only 'issue' in this arena is when i read over and over and over the idea that mccain or obama...we will end up with the exact same outcome, the exact same america, the exact same affect on the world. i seriously do not see how others can truly say it, or believe it, no matter how similkar one may see them - which i don't - but even if one does, i think their DISsimilarities are great enough, and important enough to at least take notice. still don't either...cool...but stop saying they are one and the same, and will result in one and the same presidency b/c while we'll never know for certain, i just don't see how anyone can truly, seriously believe that.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Surely a douche and a turd sandwich have their differences....

Abuskedti

Of course they are... the whole bunch of them.. Congress and their salaries, kick backs, and pensions.. Its a club with the power to take what they want. and we still vote for them. They have us arguing between Dem and Rep and they are both on the same fucking team.