Don't accept McCain's invatation!

[Plane]

Don't do it Senator Obama , don't go around the country for a long round of town hall meetings.

Senator McCain just wants to get you away from your sorce of power , the teleprompter.

[sirs]

 

[fatman]

I for one would like to see this, I think that it's a great idea, especially in crucial swing states.  If Obama really is an empty suit, we'll see it.  If McCain really is McSame, we'll see that too.  Perhaps this might usher in a new type of issues driven campaigning, but I'm not holding my breath...yet.

[Michael Tee]

McCain's a demagogue.  He's  not interested in reasoned debate, he'll put Obama on the spot with emotional issues like Iraq and the "troops."  Or Israel.

Obama can't win.  If he responds honestly to McCain, he's gonna look like an elitist snob.  Nothing wrong with being an elitist, he really IS smarter than McCain, his wife's smarter than McCain's wife - - but how's it look to admit it?  If, OTOH,  he tries to "out-redneck" McCain, he'll only piss off his base.

I look at it like this:  Obama's being deliberately vague about his intentions, which leaves me uneasy because it means he can betray his base and say he never promised anything specific.  So the base could get screwed.  But I know he also is NOT tied to five more years in Iraq, not really tied to specific backing of Israel (never went as far as Hillary.)  I'm willing to take a chance on Obama - - the chance that he won't betray his base, the people who want real change, but I know that betrayal is an ever-present possibility.  Wouldn't be the first time.  Bill Clinton betrayed his base when he shafted Lani Guinere.

When he says "change," I and a lot of others tie it to, NOT wedded to military solutions, endless killing and lying and invasions on behalf of Israel and/or Big Oil; NOT wedded to perpetual unconditional backing of Israel at the expense of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.  THAT'S what "change" means to me. 

To spell it out would spell doom.  Why not pacify the morons, who are a large percentage of voters, and get in with the votes of those who really want "change?"  I don't need to hear him debate McCain - - the issues have already been debated ad nauseam here and elsewhere.  A debate would not shed light on the issues, but it could easily cost Obama votes by stripping him of the ambiguity he clearly can benefit from and take advantage of.  The debate formats I have seen always put the demagogue at a decided advantage.  Obama is the anti-demagogue, why fight on the demagogue's home turf and rules?

[Plane]

  Obama's being deliberately vague about his intentions,......................When he says "change," I and a lot of others tie it to, ............................................what "change" means to me. 

To spell it out would spell doom.  Why not pacify the morons, ...."

You mean to say that if Barak Obama's real intent was understood more people would reject him?

Why would McCain be immune from this effect?

[Michael Tee]

<<You mean to say that if Barak Obama's real intent was understood more people would reject him?>>

That or he'd be forced onto the defensive.  McCain too - - if more people understood his real intent was to win the war no matter what it cost and what the diversion of funds would do to America in general and themselves in particular, they'd reject McCain.

But unfortunately, those who'd reject a more open Obama would be doing so in the heat of an emotion.  Those who'd reject a more open McCain would be doing so based on reason and common sense.

A debate forum gives the advantage to the demagogue to work the spectators' emotions, to the disadvantage of the "thinking man's candidate."  Part of the reason is the format:  there's no time for the logic, analysis and consideration of alternatives that reason demands (no need, either, as most folks have already spent hours in debating these same issues amongst themselves anyway - - they won't hear new arguments from either participant.)   A good shout, a good commanding voice and manner often beats the more quiet and more thoughtful discourse.

Therefore it's as natural for McCain, the demagogue, to seek town-hall debates as it is for Obama to avoid them.  Each candidate seeks the forum that lets him shine according to his peculiar strengths and talents.

[Plane]

Hahahaha..

Obama has no problems with voice or manner , as long as he has a teleprompter and an audience staisfied with ambiguity he is in his element .

To say though that a thinking man prefers ambiguity to examination strikes me as funny.

So does the notion that McCain could gain by shouting down Obama ,   ...right in frount of everybody?


Town Halls can produce unpredictable questions , the advantage would be to the faster thinker , Obama should consider giveing up his ambiguity advantage carefully.

[fatman]

which leaves me uneasy because it means he can betray his base and say he never promised anything specific.  So the base could get screwed.

Screw their base.  The President is elected to lead all of America, it's time Presidents lead the American people first, and their base second.  And that goes for liberals and conservatives alike.  Start worrying more about what's good for the country, and less about what's good for the base, and citable results will follow.

[sirs]

Word

[Xavier_Onassis]

The presidential debates I have seen have not been real debates, such as one might participate in the University or High School, or even the debate between Lincoln and Douglas. They rarely are about anything substantial and about all you can say about them is that they are more useful than those 30-second TV spots, which are totally useless.

Town Hall meetings might be a bit better than a typical presidential debate, being as there is not a time limit on the answer. After all, one cannot summarize tax reforms in 120 seconds, or health care in 360 seconds in any useful way.

I imagine that each candidate will do what he considers to be his most effective venue. Who would not do that?

[Michael Tee]

<<To say though that a thinking man prefers ambiguity to examination strikes me as funny.>>

I don't see ambiguity in Obama's statement.  I think it's a skillfully crafted, highly nuanced message that lets guys like me hope with good reason that Obama really does mean to change the prevailing culture of war and fascism and at the same time gives the Neanderthal morons who back that culture no real alarm signals.  That's why I call Obama the thinking man's candidate.  You've got to think your way past the superficial meaning of the words he uses and consider also their strategic aspect.

I don't think McSame's campaign can in any way be construed as "examination."  He ridicules Obama as the guy who wants to turn tail and run.  Real examination would ask, "What's wrong with running from a bottomless quagmire?"  Very rarely does McSame examine.  He crudely ridicules, he whips up "patriotic" emotions against Obama.  Never have I heard McSame actually examine in detail any anti-war position and respond to it point by point.  Easier to ridicule it as pure cowardice.

[Rich]

>>McCain's a demagogue.<<

And so it begins ...

[Xavier_Onassis]

McCain has been a demagogue for some time now. But that is not his worst feature.

What do you expect those of us who are repulsed by the hideous incompetence, cruelty and stubbornness of the failed Juniorbush/Cheney term to do? Crown McCain King of Kings for no reason other than because he is the only thing the clowns who foisted Juniorbush and Cheney on us have decided must now lead us?

[sirs]

<<To say though that a thinking man prefers ambiguity to examination strikes me as funny.>>

I don't see ambiguity in Obama's statement.  I think it's a skillfully crafted, highly nuanced message .....

It's not just ambiguous and vague......it's skillfully nuanced ambiguity, that only smart people can decipher

I don't think McSame's campaign can in any way be construed as "examination."  He ridicules Obama as the guy who wants to turn tail and run.  Real examination would ask, "What's wrong with running from a bottomless quagmire?" 

alas, if only reality could keep up with the meritless accusation

[Michael Tee]

<<Screw their base.  The President is elected to lead all of America, it's time Presidents lead the American people first, and their base second.  And that goes for liberals and conservatives alike.>>

That's right, fatman, but you're talking about the President's duties once he assumes office and I was talking primarily about his voting base.  You're right, of course, but I was referring not so much to the President's obligations as to the effect on the people who voted him into office only to find that the inducements to vote for him were never intended to be fulfilled. The anti-war base DOES think that their position is best for the country even though it's not necessarily best for Israel, and so they would consider a betrayal of the base to be also a betrayal of the country's best interests as well.