Centerfield

I guess if vitality is the measure you would have voted for Carter over Reagan and er..well...someone over FDR. Hell, Washington was getting on in age and Jefferson was probably far more vital. Since both your last post and this are essentially the same let me add this:

If a candidate just spins borrowed lines and preacher's vernacular, why do you get upset when that is all there is to complain about? If we go back to bombing AQ in the caves of Pakistan, we could argue policy. If you post a thread about new Iranian nuclear programs (alledged that is) we could talk about Obama's game plan. If Obama lays out his plan to defeat the militants in Afghanistan, we could debate it. We could even talk about Obama's Amnesty program should he come President. Will there be status checks on workers?

When the candidate spins words to "envigorate" the crowd, or when his wife takes to the pulpit and declares how really proud she is to be an America, then why sob, that that becomes the focus?

It seems you want it both ways. When Obama talks healthcare, Hillary rises. When Obama talks economy, Hillary rises. As long as Obama plays the role as Liberal Piper, then don't bitch if someone finds the music somewhat repetitive.

Gees Kritter, do we all have to drink the same drink?

Maybe you're trying to paint Hillary and McCain in the same political corner. Two people can see the same thing, without being the same gender, or of the same mind.

McCain in this contest reminds me of Dole in 96 and Kerry last cycle - a winner more by seniority and the lack of any good talent on their sides that year. What is it about off-years that makes it hard for anybody good to prevail? Last time, IMHO we lost the centrist Dean early in the campaign, and the GOP's Romney, who could've taken advantage of Giuliani's faltering, went used-car-salesman.

But the gap isn't just between McCain and Obama, I DO agree with Max that Clinton and Reagan also perform(ed) better. So it's not just an age thing.

Though I DO think Obama's the best speaker in this race, like Mr. Clinton was both times he ran.

Age, like substance, isn't all that relevant when you are looking at the effectiveness of someone as a speaker. Reagan, love or hate his message, was clearly a much better speaker than his opponents. Obama is, too -- and, I suspect, still will be 4 or 8 or more years hence. There just aren't that many gifted speakers out there, who are also willing to take on running for President.

Now those of us who pay attention to politics might prefer that decisions be made based on the policy positions of the candidates. But the reality is that, after they have winnowed out the possible candidates whose policies they think would be utter disasters, most of the voting population will make their decision on gut feel more than anything else. Which is why a gifted speaker has an edge.

And for most of the voting population, the differences between McCain, Clinton, and Obama -on the issues that they really care about - just aren't that great. They may not agree with some of them, but they don't recoil from them. Maybe we think that they should, but they sure don't seem to.

Obama promises change, and you call it positive change, but that's the rub. One's politics decide whether the change he wants is positive or negative. You consider it positive, and I consider it negative, so even though I'm not thrilled with McCain, I will vote for him. Eventually, the actual consequences of all the change Obama wants will be brought to light, hopefully by the media, but if not, by the GOP. That's when we'll really find out what people think of Obama.

Max, do you REALLY think that Jimmy Carter presented a figure of greater vitality than Ronald Reagan? I mean, you've seen footage of both, right? Vitality is only loosely a function of age. I usually found Carter morose and depressing. Reagan was the guy who'd be fun to have a beer with, not long-faced pious Jimmy.

Eventually, the actual consequences of all the change Obama wants will be brought to light, hopefully by the media, but if not, by the GOP. That's when we'll really find out what people think of Obama.

I think we're already finding out what people REALLY think of Obama, which is that folks like him. Alot. It's nice to think that since it goes much deeper than that for you, it must also go much deeper for everyone else. My sense is that it probably should, but probably doesn't.

It goes deeper for me, which is why I haven't decided who will ultimately get my useless vote to be cast in a state certain to go blue. But overpromising doesn't usually trouble me all that much.

Of course much (most?) of what Obama's promising can't be afforded now or maybe ever. I msuspect strongly that he's well aware of that, and I just discount it...I always say in my head "how much of this is going to happen?" And then I credit it based on my own estimate. The totality of the package, which aint gonna happen, really only goes to direction.

The direction Obama is pointing is towards a government more eagerly on the side of folks with incomes at and below the median. I think he's aiming for 10 so that he can get one. We're not going to get giant additional entitlements besides maybe some sort of single-payer healthcare reform. And we may end up with a change in tax policy where higher rates are restored on top earners and tax credits are given out to lower income folks for a raft of basic goodies. Especially likely is something geared towards financing college costs. But IMO, reports that Obama eager to or is going to be able to turn us into Sweden are grossly exagerrated.

But if that's a direction that really troubles you, a direction where the top of the income pyramid gets tapped down, and yup redistributed, then Obama is not your guy.

Raise the tax on people making more than $97,000? Of course, Obama is making promises that he will never keep. He has promises the oon on just pulling out of Iraq which on this bolg is actually redirected to Afghanistan and the battle field called Pakistan. Also rebuilding our military readiness. I cannot say that Hillary doesn't do any over-promising too. Of course she does. But let's forget any economic record. That is old and tired. Time to turn the page on the CLinton past. It is Volker over Greenspan, Zbig over Madeline and Cohen.

My point is that by talking purty, he simply works on being liked. I hope he uses that charm on our enemies. I found his remark that Hillary PERIODICALLY attacks him to be utterly sexist and hardly what a nice guy says. Is his snub about liking Hillary which brought his apology, revealing Obama's nasty side. He did go after her personally first, so it is fair to ask how deep is Obama's niceness? Deep enough to get elected?

True about Carter, but I think you over-estimate vitality, when we need an overhaul of policy. Doesn't toughness, determination and clarity count? Young and different is really the way to reform policy, or just scrap it? And Kritter, is it really fair to compare drug addiction to the flaming remarks of Michelle? Laura Bush is actually well-liked and the comparisons don't really ring. Hell, I'm Liberal and they don't ring. What Rush said about Fox was offensive. Who really thinks Michelle will have any role like Lady Bird, Ford or Condi. Just look at Obama's wedding pictures. Michel;le is about as Alpha as you can get.

Also the redirect to Obama's website as the proof of policy depth? Susan Rice countered McCain, but William has what Obama said below. As long as the policies are broad (and almost identical to Hillary), they are okay, but to debate the details, compare approaches and advisors, past statements with present ones, debating is offensive to Obama lovers. (not that you are one)

Brian is probably right. Most Americans don't care until the shit hits the fan. The finer points are lost under the weight of promises never kept. That is political realism, even if it isn't policy realism. I just can't wait for the NYT to report one day of the strange similarity of the Carter era with the Obama one. Then they will review the dots, examine the advisors and wonder why no one was thinking...LOL

Don't fret, even that will be drowned out in partisan blather blaming Bill Clinton and George Bush in the usual old behavior no matter how much we want to turn the page, hope for change, leave the failed policies of the past behind and build a bright bridge to the future.

Yes, Brian is probably right, Obama (Axelrod) is the new opiate of the masses and who can question that?

I suppose it's in our nature to think that people are generally a lot more like ourselves than they really are. So, fair enough, I admit that my last comment was more inspired by my hopes than my logical expectations. I guess I need to research Obama's promises so I can give more informed opinions; but of those few I do know of, I don't support a single one. The few Obama supporters I know (and have asked) have all given me the impression that the main reason is how he makes them feel.

This is definitely not my favorite election :)

You said it. I hate the reason given the issues at stake. I mean, after Bush, how can details NOT be important? How does one avoid incompetence and poor planning? Maybe I am unfair to Obama because I react to the marketing and Obama mania of Kool Aid drinkers. Perhaps I make too much of the deeper suspected problems. I just see race card, personal attacks and the style going against the promise of a different, unconventional campaign. Now if he can't deliver on that, why should I believe?

Tough spot. No easy answer if you put aside faith.