»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
2008 Election - A Look Backward
| The Alley |
|
2008 Election - A Look Backward |
|
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy 
|
A Look Backward Years from now, people in all areas of study will marvel over the 2008 elections, much as they do now about the Kennedy/Nixon campaign. There is little doubt that this election has been compelling enough to involve most of the nation in an area, politics, that most people shun in normal conversation, let alone in deep thought. The least interesting time segment has been the last two weeks of the election, with no major news stories breaking about the election, and both candidates left up to their own charisma to drive the independent battleground states to their points of view. I am still in a bit of awe that a 2-year US Senator can be seriously thought of as a ‘seasoned, ready to lead’ candidate for the President. Barack Obama, by all accounts, has conducted one of the most effective nomination campaigns, knocking off Hillary Clinton who wasn’t expected to encounter ANY difficulty in securing the nomination. During this nomination process, Obama’s future Vice President choice, Joe Biden, called Obama ‘inexperienced, not ready to lead.’ The scholars will discuss exactly how Hillary was defeated by Obama in a nomination run that was every bit as gripping as any Presidential election in memory. John McCain, a maverick highly respected both parties, but also chock full of political enemies because he refused to tow a strict Republican partisan line. His campaign was clean, but lacked force of conviction. He constantly tried to defend that he ‘wasn’t George Bush.’ Both McCain and Obama performed in a very respectable gentlemanly manner, unusual for the normal GOTCHA politics of the past elections. Instead, the media became Obama’s attack dog: overplaying its hand constantly on GOTCHA stories about the Republicans, while virtually ignoring every negative story about Obama, with the possible exception of the Reverend Wright saga. At the end of the campaign, polls showed that over 70% of the Obama media stories were positive in nature, while McCain only had 25% of his stories being portrayed as positive. Had McCain run a flawed campaign, full of gaffes and mistakes, this 25% might be plausible, but he didn’t make those mistakes. The public was hungry for information on Obama, and when they heard the questionable associations between Obama and his peers, they ignored them. The media ignored them except to acknowledge them long enough to contradict any Republican talking points on them. McCain was mildly chastised for his marriages and for the Keating Five. Obama had no less than 7 friends who had questionable morals: Tony Rezko (convict, campaign manager), Reverend Wright, Reverend Flagler, Bill Ayres (political 60’s terrorist), Jessie Jackson, Mayor Daly, Franklin Raines (Freddie Mac CEO). All, except for Daly, were thrown under the bus by Obama, who refused to acknowledge that he was close to any of them. Somehow, the public believed it. I think it was because the media defended Obama in this charade. Tell people 70 times that someone is good, they’ll believe it, finally. Obama was also listed as the ‘2nd most Liberal’ in Congress. For him to win any national election, he would have to move more toward the center, and he did quickly in the beginning of the campaign. He even endorsed a death-penalty, endorsed Justice Scalia, and supported the domestic surveillance Telecom legislation. It was hard to understand Obama's insistence he would take only federal funds in the general election, until it was followed by his decision to rake in as many millions from contributors as he could. In the final week, he dropped $3 million on a massive 30 minute infomercial that had essentially no effect on the public that could be measured. Altogether, he raised $450 million. McCain also moved more toward the center (or was it ‘farther away from Bush?.) He softened his stance on ecology, calling for more oil exploration thru drilling. He was a huge advocate for financial deregulation, but when the Fannie/Freddie crisis hit, he supported a huge bailout and more oversight. McCain also didn’t support Bush’s tax cuts and voted against them initially, but later on voted to a) extend them and b) supported the cuts verbally. Obama had a great opportunity to utilize Hillary’s base by asking her to fill his VP slot, but didn’t do it. I wonder whether poli-sci pundits later will call this Obama’s biggest campaign mistake. He virtually ignored her after the nomination was secured and destroyed Hillary’s appeal as a future candidate as well. It should be noted, however, that the public was understandably skeptical of 12 years of Bush’s, and 12 years or more of Clintons running the White House and country. Maybe it was time for a complete change; only time will tell. History will gush over the charisma and wonderful speech-making from Obama. They will fall asleep listening to tapes of showing ‘charisma’ of McCain. They will point to the era as ripe for a candidate of ‘change’ and how perfectly the first African-American Presidential nominee presented the emotional appeal. Neither candidate scored many points on ‘technical details’ of their plans. Obama learned how not to bore his listeners with details. The final turning point of the election campaign was not Iraq, like it was predicted to be. Instead, it was the partial collapse of the economy, which fell into Obama’s lap like voting manna from heaven. McCain stumbles in an effort to act Presidential and react swiftly, but instead is perceived as an opportunistic flip-flopper rushing back to the Senate to ‘draw the Republican Party back together in a moment of crisis.’ I believe this was the ‘jump-the-shark’ moment when the McCain backslide was inevitable. Even his VP selection of Sarah Palin didn’t seem to help him the final days, although she energized the campaign early on. Foreign countries, used to the United States replacing complete foreign policy with the election of new Presidents every 4-8 years, were mesmerized by every aspect of both the election, and watched Obama’s rise to power. They saw him as a multi-cultural leader who best exemplified the European ideals more than McCain or Bush, or Reagan. All that is left now is for the final tallies, and for all the drama, the actual election will not lie in the voters hands. Why? Because the popular vote doesn’t elect the president, the electoral college does in a winner-take-all proposition. As a matter of fact, Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election, but lost the entire election on electoral votes. In a strange twist of fate, an election that will energize millions of voters to actually cast their votes (only 45% of registered voters normally vote nationally), will actually have no effect or say on who will be the next President. It’s a sad commentary on our adherence to an out of date Constitutional Article (number 15.) The Democrats have a form of the electoral college using Super Delegates during their nomination procedure. They were supposed to vote the way their constituents in their voting area voted during the Primaries. But some of them didn’t. There is no guarantee the Electoral college members will follow their state’s voter results either. If and when (win?) Obama secures the Presidential Election, he will join a Democratic Majority in both the House and Senate, virtually wiping out the two-party system for the duration of his term. 11/1/08 Jeff Feezle [This message has been edited by threadbear (11-03-2008 04:56 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Jeff Feezle - All Rights Reserved | |||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"John Kerry won the popular vote in the 2004 election" Are you sure about that? I thought Bush did. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
We're looking back before it's over?  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Jeff, quote: It is possible that Obama will win. I hope he does, though given the past two elections, I will believe it only when the man takes office. I suspect that Obama is more middle of the road than the current hysterics paint him as being. The Republicans no longer seem to have a Rockefeller moderate wing of the party which was still Republican, but not so painfully far to the right of center as the party is today. If such a wing of the party did exist, I think the Republicans would have an excellent chance of remaining in office in both executive and legislative branches in at least slim majorities. The far right has cut the throat of the interests of the Party as a whole. I believe. An Eisenhower would probably haver been too far to the left for the current crop of neo-cons. He warned against the Military Industrial Complex with which the current group of rascals seems joined at the hip. Because the politics of the past eight years has been so hardball and so uncompromising on the part of the right, to hear somebody from the right warn about the same situation being possibly replayed from the left seems — at a minimum — ironic. After all those years of high-handed exclusion, did you think it likely that you wouldn't have built up a serious attitude problem in your opponents? Bi-partisanship is valued not because it's wimpy, but because it's an investment in the future; and the investment is generally one built on trust. Since the Republican era of hardball politics showed up in 1994, precious little of that has been extended toward the Democrats. I think you many be right to be extremely worried, though I hope you are in fact wrong. A lot of cooperation is going to be needed in order for the executive branch to divest itself of the excess power it has gathered to itself over the past eight years, and it's going to need legislative help to do so. I have no particular belief that any party in power is going to find it easy to return power to the people and to put appropriate safeguards in place where they will not be tampered with again by folks in power. I don't care which party they belong to. We are at a place of constitutional crisis. Naomi Wolf believes that a bloodless coup has already taken place here. I'm not sure that I go that far, but my level of distrust is sky-high and I consider martial law a distinct possibility in the near future, while understanding that I am probably over-reacting. The presence of military units in this country being trained for riot and insurrection suppression does not reassure me. I have everything goes well during the elections. I hope everybody is able to vote for the person they feel will do the best job, and I wish everybody and the country as a whole the best of luck and all my best wishes. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Is Posse Comitatus Dead? http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/102220 Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out "Crowd Control" http://www.alternet.org/rights/101958/tho usands_of_troops_are_deployed_on_u.s._streets_ready_to_carry_out_%22crowd_control%22/?page=1 Dear Conservatives, Will You Help Save the Republic from Military Takeover? http://www.alternet.org/rights/103554/dear_conservatives%2C _will_you_help_save_the_republic_from_military_takeover/ It Is Now Absolutely Crystal Clear That Republican Rule Is Dangerous and Authoritarian http://www.alternet.org/democracy/105669/ it_is_now_absolutely_crystal_clear_that_republican_rule_is_dangerous_and_authoritarian/?page |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It's a very interesting question, Threadbear. One would have to ask..WHO is looking back? The general populace? Who can say? Normally their thoughts are formed by the media. Billy the Kid was a sniveling little 21-year old brat who killed three people and was shot down. Thanks to the media, 150 years later his name is still well-known by all and young children imitate him, thanks to the media that made him famous. JFK's presidency was known as Camelot, even though he was responsible for the Viet Nam war which killed hundreds of thousands of people and demoralized the country. However, he, Jackie, John-John and Caroline mesmerized the country, disregarding the fact that he was well-known as probably the greatest womanizer to sit in the Oval Office, a record to be surpassed only by Clinton. The general populace will remember this time in whatever way the media wants them to. The conservative part of the populace not swayed by the media will remember it as a very sad event. The liberal part of the populace, disgusted by the Bush presidency and ready for anyone else NOT connected with Bush, will wake up a year or so after the election and the results to follow, and will feel like the fellow waking up in the morning after a night at the bar with a 300 lb fat woman lying next to him, thinking, "Oh, no! What did I do????" The blacks? They will remember this time as the time they finally arrived. From slavery to segregated drinking fountains to the Presidency of the Untied States. It will be a vindication for them and probably the greatest impossible dream come true they could ever have imagined. I happen to agree with them. Economists will remember it as the beginning of the end of our economic system as we have known it. It will be the beginning of the end of the entreprenureal spirit that has made our country what it is. They will look at the massive movement of businesses overseas and the rise in unemployment that will follow and the rise in crime that will result and they will recall it as the time the united States became a European country instead of being the individual, unmatched country it has grown to be. Journalists will remember it as the time journalism died in the United States.....or rather, the time respect for journalism died. They will study the coverage leading up to the election, the way Obama was not called to account for any of his statements or actions, the way the Republican vis-presidential nominee was attacked in ways that would shame any decent human being, they will see it as the death of decency among reporting, they will tally the number of negative news stories presented against McCain, compared to the microscopic negativity against Obama, and they will realize that this was the time that the general populace lost respect for the news media as any kind of unbiased reporters of news.It will also be a clear blueprint for new journalists on how effective and powerful the media can be, when unbridled. Political scholars will look back at a time a person with no experience, training, or military background somehow found his way into the White House, simply because he gave a good speech. They will look back at the alliance of Obama, Pelosi and Reed, the liberal judges that will be swift-slided into federal judgeships and the Supreme court, and they will see this time as the point that infividual rights began their downhill slide in the country. They will see Obama as the pawn, with Pelosi, Reed, Boxer, Biden, Gore, Kerry and others being the ones to pull his strings. They will probably scratch their heads at the stupidity of the populace at the time. would I like for it NOT to be like this? You better believe it. I am American before I am a member of a political party and, if Obama were to do well and bring back prosperity and clear things up the right way with respect to foreign affairs, I would be the first to applaud. Unfortunately, I do not see it happening. I see exactly what i have described, jobs moving away, unenployment up, entrepreneural spirit crushed, and more crime. Apparently a few other people agree with me because gun sales are a record highs right now. Crime and unemployment always go hand in hand. Obama wants to make it "obligatory" that we share. Obviously he has never taken the time to notice that we are the most sharing people on earth, both at home and abroad. When there are people in need, be it charities, natural disasters or whatever, Americans do not hesitate to reach into their wallets to help....and they do it voluntarily. Obama does not want this spirit to continue. He wants to make it obligatory. He talked about how he shared his toys with other kids in school, apparently without realizing that that would be different having the teacher take his toys away and give them to the other kids. This way of thinking is going to be very detrimental to the country and will lead to things I don't even like to think about. How will historians look back on it? Hopefully they will be allowed to. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Just a couple of secondary news items as election appetizers: Extending my sympathy to B.Obama on the passing of his grandmother today. I know she wanted to see the results of the election and see her grandson do well. It is really sad that 2 days before the election she won't be here, and Obama will have her passing on his mind in the middle of everything else. On a much lighter note, just because I thought it was amusing, Barack gave the following comment on 'Saggy Pants Problem': OBAMA: I think people passing a law against people wearing sagging pants is a waste of time. We should be focused on creating jobs, improving our schools, health care, dealing with the war in Iraq, and anybody, any public official, that is worrying about sagging pants probably needs to spend some time focusing on real problems out there. Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's wrong with that? Come on. There are some issues that we face, that you don't have to pass a law, but that doesn't mean folks can't have some sense and some respect for other people and, you know, some people might not want to see your underwear — I'm one of them." I don't know why, but the imperative: "Brothers- pull up your pants" ...seems to resonate with me, for some reason. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Maybe because he's never referred to a white man as a brother?? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
We are all children of God, therefore Brothers and Sisters. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Well, to be fair, in Obama's world: the world 'brother' means something entirely different, especially on cultural issues. I think I saw this comment as a metaphor. There is such a disparity between the black man- Obama and the saggy-pants young black man. Sort of polar opposites within the same race. I would like to think he was asking them to get their act together. The irony was just too rich (pardon the pun) to pass up on. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I can't speak to history. At best, I know only how I will personally look back on 2008. There was a short news story on my local station last night. It didn't shape my perspective on this election, but I think perhaps it epitomized it. GROSSE POINTE FARMS, Mich. (AP) - A woman in the affluent Detroit suburb of Grosse Pointe Farms has doled out political tricks by refusing Halloween treats to children whose parents support Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Shirley Nagel passed out candy Friday, but only to those who shared her support for Republican presidential candidate John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin. Television station WJBK says a sign posted outside Nagel's house, about 10 miles northeast of downtown Detroit, served this notice to trick-or-treaters: "No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters." Nagel tells WJBK that "Obama's scary." When asked about children who were turned away empty-handed and crying, she said: "Oh well. Everybody has a choice." I'm often fond of pointing out that the best thing about a democracy is that people inevitably get pretty much what they deserve. This election proved me wrong. In this election, I think the American people are getting much better than they apparently deserve. We have two candidates of proven loyalty and unimpeachable integrity. I don't fully agree with either man on the issues. I think both have made mistakes, and I fear either of them will likely make worse ones once elected. Nothing, however, can detract from the quality of commitment and leadership they have each offered the American people. Senators Obama and McCain are great men, and one of them will lead this country through some very difficult times. America should be proud to have raised up two such leaders. Unfortunately, Shirley Nagel of Grosse Point Farms, Michigan seems to be a pretty typical American. She is bitter, vindictive, and cruel. Like a bad writer stuck in a horrible cliché, she thinks the only way to disagree with someone is to hate them, and the poison inside her insists she demonstrate that hate at every turn. She has no respect for the candidates because she has no respect for America. And ultimately, I suspect, no respect for herself. When I look back at 2008, I think it's going to be the year I became disillusioned with people. It's going to be the year I realized how incredibly cruel people can be for no other reason than that someone else disagreed with them. I don't know who's going to win this election. But I have this horrible, twisting gut feeling that I already know who lost. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hey Jennifer: yes- post corrected: it was Gore/Bush 2000. Serenity: a look back, but mostly an evaluation of the key points in what lead up to tomorrow. Hi, Bob. Thanks always for your comments. Even Bush found it difficult to maintain his own status quo agenda and became part-liberal in project funding and part-conservative on energy. Whether Obama wants to or not, the centrist position will be the easiest in which to make changes it. A far leftist ideal might not make it past the 'over 50% mark' even though Dem's may control Congress and White House. It may be argued truthfully, that poll-driven politics while in office, such as Bill Clinton did, is both a good and bad thing. Clinton can always rightfully claim that he was exercising the 'will of the people' by majority. But do we really want a leader who lacks individual clarity on key issues? Bush may have been many things, but one thing he was not: a waffler. He stood up to bat and stood resolute on what he considered were very key issues at the time, such as terrorism, energy, etc.. I admire him for that. He took the hits he knew were coming, and for the most part, didn't complain. Will Obama be a 'stand-up' guy? Such a big 'if' in that department. For McCain to win, he would have win most all of the Independent votes, and pull a Truman/Dewey upset. Don't believe polls. They are conducted using their own formulas, and in this election especially, predicting the future election news accurately has proved to be impossible time after time. \ It's not unusual for elections to be under the protection of the National Guard or US Army, Jennifer, and for anyone to claim otherwise ignores ALL past election histories. Mr. Mike: right, as usual. This election had soooo many historic firsts: the most expensive, the most registered voters, possibly the highest turnout, the most red states turning blue, the first black Presidential nominee, the list goes on and on. Obama's method of campaign will be held up as a model for many an election yet to come, for both parties. Why? Because it was successful. As a journalist, I cannot even begin to describe my mixed emotions on the way the campaign was reported. The mixing of 'journalists' and 'political commentators' has my head in a spin as to who is whom, and which rules they SHOULD operate under. As you know, journalists are supposed to be objective, while poli-comms are not required to do so. My greatest fear if Obama wins? That he will be Commander in Chief of the armed forces. That Pelosi and her brilliance will have charge of the House bills and that Harry Reid, who is NEVER wrong about anything . . .will run the Senate. (They can always consult with murderer Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer (CA) who ALWAYS has middle state's interest in mind when passing California laws.) I wanted to also apologize for these 'shotgun' posts. I've been down for the past month with a permanent disease that has made me quite sick and loopey at times. I haven't ignored anyone intentionally, it's just that I'm not always able to get to things done like I want to in a very timely manner. My greatest election satisfaction? Easy!! My prediction that 17 yr House Rep: Jack Murtha will be upset in Pennsylvania due to high voter turnout. Sorry, Murtha: time to go. JF [This message has been edited by threadbear (11-03-2008 10:47 PM).] |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Ron, thank you for that great commentary! One of your best, in my humble opinion. Gosh yes! Both candidates refused to blatantly slam the other. The entire country should stand up right now and applaud that. It's impossible to conduct a campaign without at least pointing out some of the other candidate's flaws. Both men are trusted, individually, to be of some integrity. Even the casual politician fan has to admit this is a bit unusual for a Presidential campaign. The United States indeed, should not be embarassed by the high quality candidates put up by both parties, and I say this in complete retrospect. Obama's biggest moral failure is his group of associates. When the number of men thrown under the bus by Obama reached half-a-dozen, I began to shake my head in doubt. I don't have that doubt with McCain, but i have an equivalent doubt about confidence in him. Just overall. Still, I have to wonder just how many voters were lulled by Obama Lullaby. I think, Ron, that your Grosse Point (pun there?)example is born of frustration; manifesting in anger. Some people articulate frustration in different ways. In a somewhat related note, I read with horror about the young 12 year old trick or treater that was gunned down with an AK-47 spraying automatic gunfire after the youth simply 'rang the doorbell' and said 'trick of treat.' Apparently the home owner, who had been robbed and shot in the last 12 months, thought he was being robbed again. on Halloween by a 12 year old knocking on the door first. hmm...Stories that say much more than just the story itself. [This message has been edited by threadbear (11-03-2008 10:57 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
She is bitter, vindictive, and cruel. she thinks the only way to disagree with someone is to hate them, she has no respect for America ultimately, I suspect, no respect for herself. Shirley Nagel of Grosse Point Farms, Michigan seems to be a pretty typical American. Is that a fact, Ron? Those are the characteristics of a "typical American"? You disappoint me, sir. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
