Now that former Senator Obama has become President Elect Obama key issues that i feel have had a strongly negative effect on the United States government can be addressed.
One of the main issues is the lack of participation in the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates. I will not bring up the media's coverage of the elections because that is something not relevant to this particular issue. The very notion that America holds free and open elections but at the same time will not allow other candidates the same opportunities to address the American people as other candidates is a very dangerous thing. There needs to be serious changes made to the manner in which presidential candidates debate and what candidates are allowed to attend the debate. I just can not understand why a candidate for president would not be allowed to participate in the debates unless there are greater things influencing the situation.
I wrote this on October 7th, right after the second presidential debate.
I am getting really tired of having to watch Barack Obama waste precious airtime shaking the little ankle biter, McCain, off of his pant leg while also trying to answer the questions that Americans are asking. The domestic policy portion of tonight’s debate was almost agonizing to watch. The only joy was in watching Obama shine.
Ad Hominen Attacks
I hope that Obama keeps his next debate simple and direct. I thought it was very thoughtful of him to mention education at least twice in the townhall debate; an issue that I do not remember McCain even implying.
The false, negative rumors escalated against Obama gained their strength through being recognized and publicized even though they lacked validity. Regarding the contrived, personal attacks, Obama should merely dismiss any ad hominem statements against him as false. It would be a mistake to address, for example, the Ayer rumor at the level of details because a detailed, convoluted response implies its credibility. In other words, if Obama responds to the Ayer rumor in a detailed manner, he will seem deceiving and mildly self incriminating. On the other hand, if Obama dismisses these attacks as falsely poised and invented by an racist, resentful anti-Semitic, he will gain the upper hand through attacking the rumor and the source of the rumor itself. Additionally, if he criticizes the McCain campaign for even recognizing the rumors of the racist Andy Martin he will gain a greater advantage.
The Sadistic Victim versus the Scapegoat
In terms of psychology and literature, there are two scenarios of irony in which an individual is segregated and attacked. The first is as the scapegoat of a tragedy, but this victim, after being tortured and harassed, is reborn as the god of the next generation (ie. Jesus Christ, Dionysus). The second scenario of segregation is that of the sadistic comedy and its victim whose torture is cathartic and pleasant for the audience. The ad hominem attacks by the McCain campaign against Obama represent the sadistic and cathartic torture of comedy, the laughing angry mob, the second type of irony.
Within this article, a functional definition of tragedy and comedy are used. Tragedy is the protagonist and his separation from society; comedy is the integration of society.
Let me explain the differences between the two scenarios; pretend there is a group of x-children who harass a lonely y-child. In a tragedy, the perspective of the audience would follow the y-child and his separation from the group. The audience would be compelled to sympathize with the y-child to and pity this tortured scapegoat. An example of this is the story of the crucifixion of Christ where the audience sympathizes with the tortured scapegoat.
The alternate perspective occurs within a comedy. Likewise, in this scenario, the x-children inflict torture on the y-child. However, from this comedic perspective, the audience feels a sadistic catharsis through the torture of the y-child. Why?---because from this perspective the audience identifies with the x-children. Many Americans ethnically and nationalistically identify with McCain, the Caucasian Patriot, and the associated leaders of campaign. This is why you can search youtube to find some horrifying videos of republicans at campaign rallies making aggressive personal attacks against Obama. Many of his radical supporters are driven by the sadistic pleasures of a comedy and its victim. They empathisize "Hussein", his middle name, to indicate he is an outsider. An this is the least of it, there are plenty of cases were he is called Osama instead of Obama. This is the emotional state of the present, sadistic perspective that permits such segregating, ad hominem remarks against Obama.
Yes, Barack Obama will have no problem appealing to individuals that focus on policy. Some people are usually not able to distinguish correctly between the proposed policies of the two presidential candidates; nevertheless, Obama connects with these people through the clear manner in which he words his proposals making his policies pertinent to all people willing to listen. When Americans listen, they realize that Obama's policies are better for Americans now and better for the future of humanity. But how will Obama appeal to emotional Americans that can not understand policy or perceive their long term effects?
I am a little worried that Obama will lose to the McCain campaign's comedic, angry emotions of identity and segregation. I would suggest that he change the perspective of the dissenting audience from identifying with the x-children to identifying with him, the y-child. I doubt any extreme republicans will budge, but with this change in perspective, emotionally driven swing voters will feel guilty for leaping on to the angry, segregationist wagon, and will join those who sympathize with the scapegoat, the y-child. If Obama makes dissenters emotionally realize that they actually identify with his values and aspirations, the same, authentic values and aspirations set forth by our founding fathers, then he may convince a few of these dissenters.
Fundamental Values and Aspirations
Listening to Obama's words at last week's townhall debate was reassuring; he had the right experience and the right proposals. However, only until the closing statements was I really pulled in to sympathize with Obama at the emotional level. In these closing statements, he mentioned his background and how the image of a revered America inspired his father. He mentioned, in a thankful manner, the opportunity that America stood for; the opportunity that made it possible for him and his wife to receive an education. He brought us into his perspective and compelled us to relate to him with mutual respect and sympathy. I hope he moves our perspective in the days preceding the election, once again, like he did last week in those closing statements. We must be illuminated; we must associate our values and aspirations with those of Obama; we must identify the inhibiting problem within his opponents; we must realize that through Obama's values and policies our future will be realized.
Obama just seemed genuine and caring, while McCain came off as petty and desperate! His disdain for the candidate leading in every credible poll was most evident when he discussed a Bush/Cheney-sponsored energy bill. "You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me."
Is he so senile in his old age that he perhaps forgot Barack Obama's name? Maybe he's so used to referring to Obama as something less than acceptable for network television that he couldn't recall Obama's real name! Personally, I like to think that he really did just misspeak. What he REALLY meant to call Obama was "THE ONE," and he accidentally fumbled his words (as he did all night) when calling him "that one!"
Who's with me on this? :)
Out here in the political Wild East of Florida, you hear just about every nifty Republican rumor. There was the last summer there was the choice "Obama gets his money from a secret slush fund of Arab countries," myth that was popular amongst our elder Jewish neighbors. My current fave, though, is our Halloween special: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as the financial bogeymen.
Where is the Diversity in Presidential Debate Moderators?
This year the Presidential Debates should have a sparkle similar to Christmas morning.Just as a child is excited by the anticipation of waking up to see what’s under the Christmas tree, so should this year’s presidential debates. Isn’t the presidential campaign much more exciting and interesting when young people, 18-25, 26-35 years of age, people of color, women and diversity are more involved?
Diversity was presented with Vice Presidential Debate with Sarah Palin and Joe Biden with moderator Gwen Ifill. For this momentous history making campaign with the highest number ever of democratic voter registration and what some call, the political internet underground railroad; emerging through the innovative brilliance of technology savvy teams baked with the mesmerizing democratic convention in Denver and iced with the United States Wall Street; Can you bail us out, help a brother out Financial Crisis of 2008; How dare the Non Partisan Commission on Presidential Debates, ignore the platinum opportunity for diversity in debate moderators!
In my opinion, it appears just as John McCain, was afraid to look at Barack Obama during the first Presidential Debate on September the Commission on Presidential Debates is also afraid to add a favorable ingredient, a spice of diversity to the Moderator team.
First Jim Leher, 74 of PBS Oct. 7
Tom Brokaw, 68 of NBC Oct 15
Bob Schieffer, 71 of CBS.
Clearly this team of renowned journalist is not the unbeatable championship team of diversity in age, race and gender that have been so historic among candidates in this 2008 presidential race. This is not the team to rattle sports commentaries conversations to neighborhood beauty salons and churchgoer’s conversations.
It would be more than dazzling and entertaining but thought provoking from sizzling questions, continual advantageous dialogue and directive stimulating eye contact, to challenge beyond the pre cognitive organization of an answer if the following individuals were considered to be moderators: Soledad O’Brien, a biracial journalist who anchors the series of Black in America. The Famous Barbara Waters from the View, Diana Sawyer of Good Morning America. A few of my favorites, David Gergen, CNN Political Analyst, Harvard University Professor of Public Service and Director of the Center for Public Leadership. David Gergen has been an advisor to many presidents, Clinton and Nixon to name a few.
The Commission on Presidential Debates should consider, someone of color like Roland S. Martin, popular CNN Analyst and new Senior Analyst for the Tom Joyner Morning Show in Dallas. How about Moderators especially from the most important state to win, right here in Michigan. We have Steve Wilson, Chief Investigator for Channel Seven Action News. Next up to bat, having supreme prodigious capabilities, author and black journalist, Mr. Bankole Thompson, Senior Editor of the Michigan Chronicle. Looking to hit a homerun for the dynamic flavor of diversity, Diane Lewis, Channel Seven Action News Anchor Woman. Imagine the questions they each would generate, penetrating each presidential campaign groomsmen to be piercing, sharp with tips and pointers to respond readily on minute one of the next presidential debate.
The Commission on Debates miscast the moderators for the 2008 Presidential Debates.In the future, diversity must be represented. There should be no debate about that!
Nina Calahan-James Freelance Writer
Oama Campaign for Change
Southern Oakland County HeadquartersMichigan, Campaign for Change
Hey Barack,
Next time you face-off with John McCain and the topic comes around to HEALTHCARE - we know his definition of "rich people" - so ask him how he would fare personally if he had to go out and purchase healthcare insurance!
What would it cost? (he has no idea, but your staff experts can give you the $)
Is he insurable? (not with his pre-existing conditions)
You have to drive the point home to voters that McCain is completely out of touch with the average American and their day-to-day economic realities. He doesn't know the challenges the average American is facing (he doesn't care either). How many of his houses is he losing due to foreclosure? How much annual salary does it take to be "rich"? And to think he calls you elitist!
During the recent Presidential debate Senator McCain said, “We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us.” He called earmarking a “gateway drug” and the “out-of-control spending” a disease.
Looking more closely at this statement McCain is saying that Republicans were victims of some kind of corrupt conspiracy. They had no choice. They had no say. By his continued inference that the members of congress residing in federal prisons are there NOT because of their own choices but because of some evil plan that involved “earmarking and pork-barrel spending” we must assume that Republicans cannot think for themselves.
Some FACTS from the recent debate:
Obama was more than a worthy opponent and McCain knew it. That's why he took every opportunity to try and diminish him and be outright demeaning. He ridiculed Obama for decribing the surge as a tactic. Since McCain finished at the bottom of his class at the academy, I decided to do a mini-wiki search and found the following:
A Tactic is a conceptual action used by a military unit . . . to implement a specific mission and achieve a specific objective, to advance toward a specific goal.
A Strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal . . . “winning.”
Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed.
Was it my imagination or did Senator McCain refuse to look directly at Senator Obama throughout the first presidential debate? Whereas Senator Obama frequently looked directly at Senator McCain, especially when responding to Senator McCain's comments, I never saw Senator McCain turn to face Senator Obama -- even during his responses.
Was it my imagination or did Senator McCain refuse to address Senator Obama informally as "Barack" -- despite Senator Obama's frequent attempts to engage Senator McCain in a friendly manner by referring to him as "John"?
Was it my imagination or did Senator McCain refuse to acknowledge that Senator Obama ever said anything to which he agreed? I noted many instances in which Senator Obama began his responses by underscoring his agreement with some of what Senator McCain had said, but I never heard Senator McCain ever admit that anything that Senator Obama said made sense. Were Senator McCain's references to Senator Obama really as consistently sarcastic and as disrespectful as I perceived them to be?
In other words, did Senator McCain really behave as though he was the only presidential candidate on the stage, that Senator Obama was an Invisible Man?
As a sixty-something, highly educated African American male, I have learned through painful experience that such coarse behavior by White Americans, particularly by White males is sometimes merely rudeness ... sometimes ... but sometimes it is the uncensored lingua franca of condescending racists.
So now I have to wonder whether Senator McCain would have behaved so rudely to Senator Clinton or to any other non-African American nominee of the Democratic Party ... or whether his icy demeanor was a racist response to Senator Obama's Blackness. I will be paying even closer attention than usual to Senator McCain's demeanor during the next debates.
My Armchair Unprofessional Critique and Analysis:
Overall, they didn't get much settled that they haven't talked about before. As much as I advocate Barack Obama for President, he fidgeted on a couple of key points that I felt he could have used to nail John McCain to a wall. But I will give him plus-minus credit for one thing: he has become extremely sensitized to everything he says now because of what has happened in the past. He has sanitized his stance, because the public gets extremist with Obama's points of view and stay in the center when McCain speaks, thus giving him more of the benefit of a doubt for obvious reasons.
With Obama, everything he says is going to be misconstrued, so he erred on the side of caution. I wish he had not done that because there are many of his supporters who need to feel that same strength and air of confidence that he had when he first decided to run. Having said that, I watched the two of them cradle two major topics under duress: Taxes and this War thing.
Obama Strong pointsHe didn't appear to me to be inexperienced in foreign policy, but he couldn't speak McCain's military-wise lingo, and that shouldn't have surprised anyone because it is McCain's one and ONLY strong point. Obama has more of a broad-based background in all things political and national with a weak spot in military leadership and/or foreign policy, which is why he brought Biden in to offset that. All McCain seems to know is that broken-record "war hero" mess that doesn't make him any more prepared to run this country than Obama. On that, they're about even, so the voters will have to decide if they want a President who can do more than one thing at a time and who has a vice president who can back him up and advise him on his weaknesses; or if they want a President whose only knowledge and experience is in military effectiveness, though whatever he has backed Bush on has not proven that out; who also has a vice president who knows basically nothing at all on the home-front or in foreign international policy, who will have to be taught and learn her job as she goes.
Obama Weak PointsI didn't hear in his speech that his issue was a weakness in "foreign policy." I heard that he can't speak the "military lingo" that John McCain can. McCain's statements were forced and contrived in order to prove out the only strength he has as a candidate: His years served in the military. While saying everything about nothing on foreign policy, McCain was very arrogant in his attacks leveled at Obama, who tried a little too hard to underplay for my taste. He had that "can't attack a person the nation perceives as a war hero" look on his face.
It didn't sound like Obama was unschooled on foreign national policy; in fact, he sounded exactly the opposite. What I heard was a resounding "fear" on his part to hammer back hard at McCain, likely due to what he's already been through in the media when he takes a stronger stance. I understood what he was trying to say while simultaneously avoiding having his verbiage misconstrued. McCain is really making a big deal out of this "meeting people like Ahmine...whatever...without pre-conditions."
I understand what Obama was trying to say, but I also wish he had said, "Look, you've met with these people before under supposed 'pre-conditions' and they haven't heard a word you've said. Nothing. In my opinion, it's not going to hurt anything to try a different approach."
To me, personally, there is a difference between this John Wayne theatre "rounding up my posse tough-guy-Annie-get-your-gun" approach to everything--it's apparently not working out. The Taliban and Al Qaieda is now stronger, faster, more savvy, more concentrated and more diverse and spread out -- due to this failed war -- than they have ever been in their checkered history. McCain kept trying to force Obama to say the war was won and the surge was successful and I could tell he was very uncomfortable with that lie. It wasn't. And it never will be, that's why McCain is so arrogant about staying staying in Iraq for a hundred or even a thousand years--he knows America lost this war as it did Vietnam and won't say it. Clinton's strategy for kicking butt in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during his time in office was more efficient and well-planned and timed than was Bush's in Iraq. It was done quick and was overwith and came the closest to being resolved that it ever was before in history. Score for Dems who see people as people instead of constantly injecting terrorists as anything but human. They are; Just the fact that they can be killed says they're as human as we are. Jimmy Carter had the correct approach as well. The Republicans are just war-mongering killers who think they are the only ones who are right.
McCain knows that if Obama says the "surge" was successful, he detracts from his initial and more truthful assessment that it was a momentary success and we shouldn't be blindsided by it, or rest on our laurels. If he says it failed, it's a direct attack on the soldiers, their families, Petraus, and everyone who's sacrificed their lives on this "Mission that shouldn't have happened." I'll give McCain a half-point for that one. The deal's done and the next president isn't going to be able to talk about what shouldn't have happened, but how they are going to deal with the weaknesses and failures that are a result of the fact that it DID happen.
Somehow or another in the back of his mind, I know Obama must be thinking that the surge was only indicative of momentary success, not overall success. "No, sir," I wish he had said, "I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the War in Iraq, overall. Considering that any fabricated -wins- in the imagination of the Republican Party, are understandable goals of trying to keep your current president from leaving office in shame, this war has been a dismal failure. Though the soldiers themselves have done an excellent and exemplary job, but they have suffered at the hands of executive office mismanagement in every area from distribution of resources to rotation."
For me, that would have laid this issue to eternal rest; but he simply seemed afraid to say what I know he is thinking. People have said Obama has "gone centrist." His hand is being forced and I hope the Democratic Party and Obama's supporters who pledge no party are smart enough to read between the lines and know that he's saying what he has to say to win. I hope that he will do as promised when he reaches the White House, because Obama is our last hope for straightening this mess out. It's time for the soldiers to come home.
Military experience is the ONLY thing John McCain has going for him and unfortunately, that's not the ONLY topic Americans are dealing with right now. McCain knows nothing about anything else America is dealing with--as indicated in his highly Republican conservative speech last night. They typically are out of touch with anyone who doesn't travel in their million-dollar circles and that fact stuck out like a sore thumb. Obama had him cornered pretty much on everything but military speak...but here's the deal on that.
Every partnership has strengths and weaknesses, and he chose the best running mate to offset his weaknesses. Sorry we will never be able to say the same for John McCain's running mate. History will show that. She is a disaster waiting to happen. McCain can't do much talking about inexperience and "pork barrel" spending when his own running mate is in the exact same position as Obama, only she is less experienced on the national scale.
He tried to use Sarah Palin to "face off" with Obama as a strategy and tactic to bring Obama's youth and lack of experience to the table and it was still a negative strategy. Obama had him nailed 95 good points compared to 5 good points for McCain (if the Brownie-counter is set at 100 points max). I hope that Palin strategy backfires on him come November.
Though they both left much unsaid and unresolved last night, Obama retains his 95 good points because the only thing McCain does seem to know is military and he sounds like a broken record on that. Fresh ideas is not his strong point. However, this war has left a strong and odious distaste in the mouth of most Democrats and many Republicans. I'm certain Biden will offset that negative on Obama's part and counterbalance them as a team working together.
Palin cannot possibly do the same for McCain's weaknesses, as she is nothing more, with her attitude, than Dick Cheney in a skirt. She is a carbon copy of everything that McCain and Bush stand for, with no care for what is going on outside of Alaska; she admitted it herself from Day One. She has been nominated for a job that she wasn't thinking about preparing herself to do. In the meantime, the people of Alaska, with the exception of a few close friends and relatives, don't seem to be too excited about her position as governor, let alone vice president.
Yesterday was a confusing day for Americans. (Everyday is a confusing day for John McCain.) There was a bailout plan-- a version of the one the Bush Regime was asking for but with safeguards for working families inserted by Democrats-- and then there wasn't a bailout plan. McCain suspended his campaign-- but nothing changed except that he completely politicized the bailout process and wrecked any chance of coming up with a plan in the time frame Bush and Paulson said was essential. And as for "suspending" his campaign... no attack ads against Barack Obama have been pulled, none of the grisly array of lobbyists and special interests political hacks who serve as his surrogates have been pulled from the cable TV shows, none of his headquarters have stopped campaigning-- or were even aware that there's a "suspension"...
Read more at Down with Tyranny:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-campaign-much-ado-about-nothing.html?referer=sphere_related_content
http://planetpalin.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/daily-show-johnny-goes-to-washington/
Although the Bush administration has become aware that there is a financial crisis in America, and that the American people need to be looked after, Sen. Obama (and other democrats) have been aware of this problem. That is why he is running for president.
One of the major problems that have taken place over the years is that a lot of closed door inside dealings have been allowed to take place. For that reason it is extremely important that the American people are given a chance to decide for themselves who will lead us out of this difficult financial times. Transparency and interaction is needed, so that you as leaders can make the decisions based on what Americans need and not an out of touch reality.
These times call for hope, patience, and careful planning, to protect the American people and their money. Therefore, in all fairness to the American public, it is imperative that the debate takes place as scheduled. The American people have rights and we deserve to have our voices heard. What better way to have our voices heard than by questioning and examining our future president?
There is only one thing that Senator Obama needs to do during the debate that will instantly discredit John McCain and win him debate #1 in the eyes of the American people. At least once during the debate he should turn to John McCain in response and say: "Now John, that could put us at war with [insert country name here]. Do you really want another war?"
This statement could be used in response to any number of foreign policy topics: Spain, Iran, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, China, etc. Either answer, yes or no, would bring his previous debate answer into question. A "yes" and he's an economy-killing warmonger, a "no" and he just discredited his previous statement. Then go in for the attack on his response.
*UPDATE*
There is another thing that Senator Obama can hit McCain with that would be devastating and it involves both the economy and foreign policy. Hit him with the statement: "The war in Iraq, which you, John McCain, have and continue to support through to its end, is costing the American taxpayer $10 billion per month. Senator, if you truly put country first, then you would have to agree that bringing that money, $120 billion per year, home to the American people is far more important than continuing that war. It's time to admit your mistake and bring our soldiers home for the sake of our country." It would put McCain on his heels and probably push his temper over the edge.
If it is true that the great majority of American voters can only be reached through sound bites. and then only by a limited number of such sound bites, well that's what we'll need to give them.
sound bite - noun, a brief, quotable remark, or excerpt from a speech, made as by a politician and suitable for use on TV or radio newscasts: often a dismissive term implying superficiality. YourDictionary.com Eistein utters the ultimate sound bite:
sound bite - noun, a brief, quotable remark, or excerpt from a speech, made as by a politician and suitable for use on TV or radio newscasts: often a dismissive term implying superficiality.
YourDictionary.com
Eistein utters the ultimate sound bite:
I'm sure you can come up with your own summary phrases to describe Barack Obama's plans for the country. Please add your ideas in the comment section below. But for starters, here are my seven. I hope you'll agree they are appropriately short, sufficiently limited in number and accurately descriptive.
Don't be surprised if you start seeing and hearing bites like these from Barack Obama in ads and the Presidential debates.
wizinit is the nom de guerre of a veteran diplomat and fan of the late columnist Art Buchwald who writes serious analysis and political satire. If you would like to be notified whenever wizinit posts a new article join Food Tasters For Obama.
