I remember reading the article in which Obama made this "race card" comment...but I didn't get that feel from it. It seemed as though he was making a statement that people will try to shun and invoke fear against any change whatsoever.

Like you said, these are all pretty insignificant.

Having a transitional team for the White House isn't arrogant or presumptuous--it's smart and necessary. Obama has historical precedent as well: Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter all planned the White House transition months before the election. World events don't take a timeout for the next president to get ready, and the three months between the election and January 20th isn't enough time to prepare an entire administration. The fact that McCain considers advanced preparation to be "poor judgment" should be troubling. He claims to have a lot of experience, then he should use it.

It also helps to use the whole quote, which undercuts the arrogance argument.

"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign -- that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

The campaign only used it for about a day and a half since it was so poorly received too.

"I'm not voting for Obama because the guys that do Photoshop for him made a dumb image!"

Assuming you have already won without even getting deep into the general election(haven't even had debates yet!) is cocky and irresponsible. It's not a "can-do" attitude, it's thinking there is no way he can lose.

If it is intended as a direct retort, he's a month late. However, McCain's ad was focused on Obama superimposing himself or representations of himself on already established American icons. Had nothing to do with race. Obama is the one that turned it into a race issue with his comment.

More like the Canadian olympics team arriving in Beijing with placeholder gold medals already around their necks.

I'll give you that. I suppose I can understand with the process seeming to speed up, getting the foundation down earlier is wise. My mistake.

I actually don't even think the whole statement is necessary. I think the statement stands on its own that it's about the symbolism, not him.

This is actually my biggest criticism of the McCain campaign. Their ads suuuuuuck.

McCain is too old, anyway. Do you really want a president that can be killed by a mild winter?

I hate it when people looking to achieve a position of responsibility have to dance around their words because they're worried people might see them as presumptuous or arrogant.

Obama wants to be president, he has every right to talk about what he will do when he is president. Just as McCain has every right to talk about what he will do when he is president.

Wouldn't it become unbelievably tiresome if they had to always use stuff like "if elected" or "i'll do X but remember to elect me so I can! haha!". Talking about a future possibility as if it's already occurred allows people to better weave a compelling story.

What if that internet of the future video with all the Google/Amazon/Googlezon and Google Grid stuff had repeatedly used "and then this might happen" before every sentence, sure the video would technically have been more accurate but it would also have been a lot less watchable. I didn't see any of you calling the creator of that video arrogant.

How else would you propose we judge someone's character and attitude if not by how they speak and act?

By how they look of course. Look at how many McCain jokes there are about his looks compared to Obama. There's probably people voting Obama just because of that

I never suggested that you shouldn't judge someone by how they speak and act. I was suggesting that your criteria for those judgments are ridiculous.

Don't you think it's quite nice to know that Obama can act presidential, doesn't it make sense to know this now? What if he got elected and it turned out his behavior amongst world leaders was completely inappropriate?

Based on this infographic, McCain is going about things all wrong.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/08/03/portrait_of_the_candidate_as_a_pile_of_words/

McCain has made his campaign about Obama whilst Obama has made his campaign about Obama. Sounds like someone is missing a big clue.

absolutely not. until he comes up with a feasible way to pay for and SUCCESSFULLY implement these proposed policies, i wont even consider it.

You realize that the healthcare system would be only one variable affecting life expectancy, right?



The US has an abnormally low percentage of women breastfeeding their babies. It has been shown that countries with low percentages of breastfeeding have significantly higher infant mortality rates. Only 36% are breastfeeding at 6 months and just 17% are breastfeeding at 12 months.



So why do I keep hearing that we can't afford healthcare if somehow were spending that much per capita. Plus, greater access to healthcare would lead to more money being spent. Our doctors are paid far better than in a socialized system and people don't have to wait their turn to get treatment.



What is health coverage? In the US, that would be insurance and when you subtract non citizens and middle and high income earners it brings the figure down to 20.1 million. Now that might seem like a lot but it's really only about 7% of the population and with an average life expectancy of nearly 80 years we must not be doing too bad. Besides, having a bunch of old people around draining the funds from the system only makes the problem worse.



I'll have to get back to you on this. It was so long ago and I don't remember exactly what I heard so that is why I phrased that the way I did. So, if there are private practices, how does that work when someone needs a surgical procedure? Or is that all waiting listed at the hospital?



Pretty much everybody has access to healthcare, they just don't always have the money to pay for it outright. The answer is not to bring the entire system down to their level. The military system is essentially socialized healthcare. Most people would be outraged with the system I have, yet you all seem to want it and it gets worse the more people you throw into it.

But, please, if anybody really wants to discuss healthcare in depth start a new thread. We should devote more time to discussing Paris Hilton.

Haha, every one of those rebuttals was hilarious. I especially love how it ended 'oh well, we're just killing a few poor people! it can't be that bad!'.

But surely a lot of the other variables are fixed by the healthcare system?

Or rather, aren't because people cant afford it.

Also Mort deserves a hug.

That because joking about Obama's looks are considered racist. You can't criticize his name (islamophobe), you can't criticize his ears (he takes offense to that), and I certainly don't think you'll see any monkey editorial cartoons like you do with Bush even though with those giant ears he is certainly reminiscent of Curious George.

On a side note you also can't criticize his friends, choice of church, or fact that he has no record of ever accomplishing anything other than some shrewd political maneuvering to get into the Illinois senate. We can all agree that he does read speeches well, though.

What?

And why would you want to criticise someone's name, it's not something he picked himself and doing that is just being a dick. :/

You fail to post how much higher taxes are in those countries. You pay for it either way. Health care isn't free :downs:

We don't pay for everyone's car insurance. We don't pay for everyone to have flood insurance. Why should we pay for everyone to have health insurance? People don't treat the issue rationally since it's an emotional topic.

Not having insurance does not equal killing people although there was a sarcastic comment included there that I am sure people will think was meant seriously, not that I care. But, seriously, all of my "rebuttals" are factual. To equate only one factor, healthcare or rather who pays for the healthcare, with the differences in those statistics is simple mindedness, even for me. That is like the global warming alarmists that think human activity on this earth is solely responsible for climate change. They can't even call it global warming anymore because the data just isn't supporting it. But, that is yet another topic.



Not necessarily. You can give someone healthcare but you can't make them live a healthy lifestyle. Homicides, suicides, war, traffic fatalities, lightning strikes, bear attack, pretzel asphyxiation, to name a few, are all things that affect life expectancy statistics but will be unaffected by any level of healthcare services.

Honestly, I don't know - The only time I was ever a hospital patient was when I was born. I think it depends on exactly what procedure you want (some stuff is available privately, some is not).

Same with making a joke about someone being old or having big ears...

I agree but even just spelling out his entire name, with the dreaded Hussein, is considered an attack. It's his effing name. If it's such a touchy subject, I say get it out into the open and talk about it. Don't hide from it and criticize anybody that brings it up.

Actually, I just saw her political ad. Best one I've ever seen. No joke. If Paris Hilton understands what the hell is up with the energy situation, why can't the clowns in congress get it? Or do they willfully look the other way?

Are you sure thats more just because almost everyone is referred to just by their first and last names, and using their full name makes it seem very deliberate and they might be trying to make an attack out of it?

But hey, what do I know?

Why do you think his critics like to bring up his middle name? I mean, the only people who bring it up are the ones who use it to insinuate that he's a Manchurian jihadist. What other reason is there to bring up his middle name?

Man, I can't wait for McCain to get into office so absolutely nothing changes because everyone is "unsure" about Obama's promises. I mean, who wants potential for change when you've got more of the same?

I have serious reservations about him, but Obama's the best we're going to get. I'm kind of disturbed to see so many people declaring that they WON'T vote simply because of his party.

President Clinton was routinely referred to as William Jefferson Clinton. Ronald Wilson Reagan. George Herbert Walker Bush. Of course our current president is routinely referred to as George W. Bush but that can be explained away by the fact that some people might get confused that we're talking about another president from nearly two decades ago. Even just using all three initials is called into question because it's a muslim name even though using a persons name, let alone a presidents full name, is hardly rare. But, you could be right. Referring to Obama by name could be mean spirited. We should all probably just use "The Messiah" to stay on the safe side.

Change for the sake of change is not a good thing. It is specifically the type of change that he proposes that scares many people.

In normal conversations, people say "Bill Clinton" and "Ronald Reagan". I can't recall the last time they were identified by their middle name.

Meanwhile, you've got e-mails floating around about Obama being a secret Muslim. These people usually use his middle name as evidence of this. When you use his middle name, you're not differentiating him from some other well-known Barack Obama, like is done with George W. Bush. You're unnecessarily calling attention to his middle name, a tactic frequently used by the "secret Muslim" conspiracy theorists.

Why doesn't John McCain go by John Sidney McCain the Third? In fact, I've never heard anyone refer to him by his full name. IT MUST BE SOME CONSPIRACY.

From now on, EVERYONE must refer to him as John Sidney McCain the Third. Or JSM3 for short. Otherwise, you are being too politically correct.

You have emails floating around that no plane struck the pentagon. You're going to see kook emails on any topic. Calling "attention" to his middle name doesn't lend any more credibility to the "secret muslim" tactic initiated by the Clinton campaing than running away from the name and calling everybody racist for bringing it up. I mean, think about how stupid that sounds. The secret muslim conspiracy theorists have actually resorted to calling Obama by his name. How dreadful.

Anyways, you all are just reinforcing my original point that you can't even use his full name because it is considered an attack. You agree with me in that regard so really there is no further need to discuss that particular point.

<3

Actually, I was speaking from a purely economic standpoint. I didn't say anything about embracing their views (religious or otherwise). Nor was I suggesting we adopt their "way of life." I was primarily referring to their mindset of material acquisition. I think the easiest way to explain it is KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Our "need" to have a faster car or bigger house then our neighbor is profoundly stupid. It's the wrong driving motivation for wealth. Yes, it's the motivation of a capitalistic society, but it allows for far too many abuses of said system derived from the very same motivation. Not to mention that because of this motivation, people are driven into professions they know or care little about. The result is poor quality and slow development for the society as a whole.

It's the same as if a candidate had a middle name of Adolf. They're trying to draw a comparison between Barack Obama and Saddam Hussein. an you honestly not understand that?



So, do you agree that you're using his middle name to attack him, then? What legitimate reason do you have to always refer to him as Barack Hussein Obama in normal, everyday conversation? As Wuss said, we don't refer to John McCain as John Sydney McCain unless we wanted to draw a comparison between McCain and them damn dirty Aussies.

What, EXACTLY, has you scared about Obama's changes? You can say that you question his promises, and you can say that he seems like a rockstar, but what exactly SCARES you about him?

I'm going to have to assume here that you're deliberately obscuring the issue, because I wouldn't do you the disservice of concluding that you actually believe this argument.

Presidents were referred to by these names because they chose to go by these names. John Sidney McCain III doesn't go by John Sidney McCain III, and consequently no one refers to him as John Sidney McCain III. Likewise, Barack Hussein Obama has never gone by Barack Hussein Obama, and it's safe to assume that anyone referring to him by a name he doesn't use himself probably has a reason for it. Most of the time, that reason is pretty clear.

Wouldn't it be unbelievably tiresome if Europeans cared more about American politics than Americans? Why yes; yes it would.

Dude, it's the extremely left of center positions he has. Typically, those positions don't seem so bad when a person is younger and has less experience. As the electorate ages, they tend to move away from accepting those ideals. If you look at the possibility of a Pelosi House and Reid Senate with an Obama presidency, it really isn't hard to imagine why most Americans would be uncomfortable with his election. And McCain is nearly as scary with his tendency to side with the opposition party. This is exactly the lessor of two evils scenario you describe except McCain isn't that bad for the left.



But it is his name. He is making a mistake by hiding from it. Every once in awhile he says that the opposition is going to say "he has a wierd name" but he does so in the context that we're going to say he's black, he's unknown, blah blah blah. Nobody legitimate is saying not to vote for him because he's black (although I always find it funny that any percentage of blackness makes you black, he is half white which makes him equally white). But the idea is stupid anyway because McCain throws anybody under the bus that says anything disparaging based on race, his name, etc.

A perfect example is how they all reacted to the New Yorker Magazine cover that showed him in muslim attire. This is almost like a self fulfilling prophecy. New Yorker was making fun of the islamic criticism but the Obama campaign was so offended. Stupid. I don't think Obama is some kind of secret muslim but we all know how muslims respond to cartoons we don't like. Just ask the dutch.

I can't stand my middle name so I rarely use it. It's not secret, I'll tell someone what it is if they ask...but does that mean I'm hiding something if I'm not putting down my full name? Honestly, I don't see Obama "hiding" his name and I think it's silly to think he is.

And as for the New Yorker Magazine cover...I can understand his upset. If someone posted something of me in Nazi attire I'd be pretty damn offended. I think it's mind-boggling how not to see why something like that is offensive. Yes, it was to be a joke but it was a pretty ignorant one in my opinion. :/

This is how I think the Hussein thing went down.

1: Stupid racist uses it to say "omg he's a jihadist"
2: The PC police label him as a racist, since he is
3: Someone else uses his middle name for no ill reason
4: The PC police go overboard and call them a racist too
5: People now use his middle name just to piss off the PC police

It's not silly. His surrogates attack anyone that uses his middle name. If he wanted to rise above it he would not allow that nor criticize people for using it.



I've erased my post three times now trying to make it simple enough for you to understand. You are ignorant if you fail to understand how that lampooned Obama critics. I don't think I can say anything else on the matter that you will understand.

I understand what you're saying in your post, but I'm just stating my personal opinion when I saw the cover - to me it was offensive. I can see how it is actually poking fun at Obama's critics, but that still doesn't change the fact that I felt it was in bad taste.