maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I don't know that there's anyone in here who can credibly claim to have been even close to evenhanded in their posts on the campaign. Dread, maybe; Bluer White at times. The thing is, with the exception of a few threads, we haven't really been debating the actual campaign issues and developing arguments for or against particular candidates' proposals for addressing them. The focus has mostly been on the personality contest--the gaffes!! the flip-flops!! the skeletons in the closet!!--as if the candidates were figureheads and little else. You're not likely to get an even remotely balanced dialogue out of that approach, and I'm not sure how many of us really want one.
I'd like to credibly claim to be close to evenhanded. . . not ACTUALLY evenhanded, but at least close!
I agree with Irvine though. . .I think the forum reflects what's going on in the wider world in regards to how we approach the campaign. I'd say 90% of the stuff that's taking up our time in here in regards to either candidate is pretty much nonsense. (I even admitted above to taking a certain enjoyment in the rabid nature of some posts with viewpoints opposing mine so clearly I'm chief among sinners here). That said, I would welcome a balanced dialogue, though again as Irvine said, I don't know that there is much difference in Obama and McCain in what they'd actually do in office when all is said and done, so maybe there wouldn't be that much to debate.
I've always felt that most presidents don't deserve as much credit or blame as they get for what takes place during their time in office. . .at least until Bush. He really upended my thinking of how much damage one guy can do, and so at the very least I wouldn't want someone getting into office that would do the same. At present I don't see either McCain or Obama as likely to do so. But then I can't honestly claim to have seen it coming with Bush either. Truthfully, I think he might have done all right if 9/11 hadn't happened.
So for me, the best thing I can do is try to suss out who is less likely to turn into a Bush once in office. I know deep really fears that Obama's inexperience make him dangerously capable of turning into another Bush. I think the reason I don't worry about that to the extent he does, is because I don't believe it was Bush's inexperience that was the cause of his awful presidency. Among other things, I think it was his tendency to surround himself with loyalists--I don't see either McCain or Obama doing that. . .at least so far. So that's something in both their favor.