Support NeoGAF

[maximum360]

I dunno, the "liberals slam Obama" headline might not be so bad

They're also running with the "Obama, a flip-flopper" as well. There's not one time I can recall them doing this to McCain despite his attempts to flip-flop furiously.

 

[SouthernDragon]

From what I can tell, what Mercury Fred and Gaborn want is a swell of grassroots support, akin to what happened with the civil rights movement, which would result in enormous pressure on government politicians to pass bills that fully satisfy the rigorous positions and expectations of the gay rights movement.

The manner in which I arrived at this conclusion is their apathy towards what they deem "half-hearted" government solutions, which are solutions from the top which are not all inclusive. The second indication was Gaborn's insistence that McCain would be better than Obama for the gay rights movement, putting pressure and highlighting the unfairness that the gay community suffers, thus fermenting a powerful movement against unfair government sanctioned practices.

Obama would defuse this tension, thus removing urgency from their cause. In Gaborn's point of view, the status quo is much more preferable, since it'll allow the energy behind the gay movement to grow. Obama's "half-hearted" efforts towards equality would take the wind out of their sails.

Others see it differently. Having gone 90 meters out of a hundred, there are posters here that feel the American public wouldn't take much longer to go the extra 10 meters. Gaborn and Mercury Fred contend that the public, content with those 90 meters, would rather sit there and not be bothered with the extra 10 meters.

Both arguments have merit, but the gay side is particularly impassioned, for obvious reasons, and the other side's lack of urgency about the issue only serves to inflame the gays side.

Did I get this right?

 

[Joe]

a little over the top i think

 

[Gaborn]

From what I can tell, what Mercury Fred and Gaborn want is a swell of grassroots support, akin to what happened with the civil rights movement, which would result in enormous pressure on government politicians to pass bills that fully satisfy the rigorous positions and expectations of the gay rights movement.

The manner in which I arrived at this conclusion is their apathy towards what they deem "half-hearted" government solutions, which are solutions from the top which are not all inclusive. The second indication was Gaborn's insistence that McCain would be better than Obama for the gay rights movement, putting pressure and highlighting the unfairness that the gay community suffers, thus fermenting a powerful movement against unfair government sanctioned practices.

Obama would defuse this tension, thus removing urgency from their cause. In Gaborn's point of view, the status quo is much more preferable, since it'll allow the energy behind the gay movement to grow. Obama's "half-hearted" efforts towards equality would take the wind out of their sails.

Others see it differently. Having gone 90 meters out of a hundred, there are posters here that feel the American public wouldn't take much longer to go the extra 10 meters. Gaborn and Mercury Fred contend that the public, content with those 90 meters, would rather sit there and not be bothered with the extra 10 meters.

Both arguments have merit, but the gay side is particularly impassioned, for obvious reasons, and the other side's lack of urgency about the issue only serves to inflame the gays side.

Did I get this right?

Seems like you've got it pretty much exactly right on my end. I can't really quibble with your characterizations at all. Well, except that I contend McCain is better for the gay rights movement on MARRIAGE because of his opposition to it as well as civil unions.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

John McCain's new & improved facebook page: now with video game!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/on-facebook-its-game-on-for-mccain

CNN) – Anyone who thought John McCain’s campaign – which launched its very first Facebook application just two days ago – would make a major push on the social networking Web site when pigs fly… is right.

McCain’s new “Pork Invaders” application, launched Friday, is a video game that requires users to dodge incoming projectiles from flying pigs. If a user takes a hit from one of the application’s pigs, the user loses one of the three lives granted at the beginning of the game.

How do you kill the flying pigs? By shooting off vetoes. With each pig killed by a veto, users rack up millions of tax dollars as their score, and progress to the next level — but only after the game lays out campaign talking points like comparing the respective records of Sen. McCain and his rival, Sen. Barack Obama, on earmarks.

On Wednesday, the McCain camp launched “Campaign Cribs: Straight Talk Express” on Facebook, an application that allows users to take a video tour of McCain’s campaign bus.

McCain currently has approximately 150,000 supporters on Facebook while Obama now has roughly 1,020,000 supporters on the site.

 

[Mumei]

From what I can tell, what Mercury Fred and Gaborn want is a swell of grassroots support, akin to what happened with the civil rights movement, which would result in enormous pressure on government politicians to pass bills that fully satisfy the rigorous positions and expectations of the gay rights movement.

The manner in which I arrived at this conclusion is their apathy towards what they deem "half-hearted" government solutions, which are solutions from the top which are not all inclusive. The second indication was Gaborn's insistence that McCain would be better than Obama for the gay rights movement, putting pressure and highlighting the unfairness that the gay community suffers, thus fermenting a powerful movement against unfair government sanctioned practices.

Obama would defuse this tension, thus removing urgency from their cause. In Gaborn's point of view, the status quo is much more preferable, since it'll allow the energy behind the gay movement to grow. Obama's "half-hearted" efforts towards equality would take the wind out of their sails.

Others see it differently. Having gone 90 meters out of a hundred, there are posters here that feel the American public wouldn't take much longer to go the extra 10 meters. Gaborn and Mercury Fred contend that the public, content with those 90 meters, would rather sit there and not be bothered with the extra 10 meters.

Both arguments have merit, but the gay side is particularly impassioned, for obvious reasons, and the other side's lack of urgency about the issue only serves to inflame the gays side.

Did I get this right?

Yes.

Also, did anyone see this:

Between the 18 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries and the many others who supported her candidacy but didn't cast a ballot for her, it is safe to say that John McCain will win the votes of literally millions of Hillary Clinton supporters in the November election. Almost all of these people will have well-considered and perfectly rational reasons for voting for McCain. Perhaps they don't think that Obama has the experience to be President. Perhaps they tended to side more with John McCain on the issues to begin with, but voted for Clinton because they liked her personally. An exceptionally large cross-section of the American public liked either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Although there is a heavy degree of overlap between the two constituencies, there is a lot of room at the margins.

McCain, however, appears to be less interested in speaking to the millions of Clinton voters who fall somewhere between the cracks, and more interested in engaging the handful of crazies who dislike Barack Obama for wholly irrational reasons. Take Will Bower, the founder of a group called PUMA ("Party Unity My Ass"). On Saturday, Bower met with John McCain. On Wednesday, Bower attended Larry Sinclair's press conference, saw Sinclair literally accuse Obama of murder, saw Sinclair's lawyer wearing a kilt, saw Sinclair flee the room after the press conference because he was moments away from being arrested, and came away saying that Sinclair's story was "worth exploring". That means that McCain is either one or two degrees removed from the lunatic fringe, depending on what you think of Bower's state of mind.

Another of the people McCain met with, Paula Abeles, has a history of unethical and arguably racist behavior. Another was Harriet Christian, who gained her 15 minutes of notoriety by referring to Barack Obama as an "inadequate black man". Another is an author for the blog/conspiracist site No Quarter, which within the past week has accused of Obama of behavior ranging from having a liaison with Sinclair to promoting pedophilia through his Kids for Obama website.

And here I was worried about his efforts to reach out to disaffected Clinton voters.

 

[scorcho]

a little over the top i think

agreed. they should tone it down just a bit.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

On CNN's ticker: "Liberals slam Obama on Funding."

Also: "Trusting Obama. Fallout from funding decision."

Way to go there CNN. They give the impression that his base is against him and hint that people may no longer trust Obama.

 

[Tamanon]

Yes.

Also, did anyone see this:



And here I was worried about his efforts to reach out to disaffected Clinton voters.

To be fair, McCain really can't reach out to the non-crazy Clinton supporters. He can only make a play for the crazy ones and hope that affects low information ones also. His policies make it impossible for more outreach.:lol

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yes.

Also, did anyone see this:

And here I was worried about his efforts to reach out to disaffected Clinton voters.

Yeah, I just got done reading that. Fivethirtyeight is rapidly becoming my favorite political analysis site. This cycle has made me a bit of a poll junkie and their analysis and banks of graphs make my mouth water every time.

RE: logo. It is a bit elaborate, and hilariously too large in that pic.

:lol

Nailed it.

 

[Tamanon]

I like the logo, but yeah it's too large and ill-placed in that photo.

 

[Gaborn]

:lol :lol :lol as I said, I happen to agree with Obama on this one, not necessarily for THAT reason but he's got the right principle on public financing being a bad idea.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

a little over the top i think

I like it. Nothing says "don't believe the rumors you hear about me being a secret Muslim terrorist" quite like being around a copious number of American flags. There should be more flags, I say. Also, his suit should be entirely covered in American flag pins.

 

[Mumei]

Yeah, I just got done reading that. Fivethirtyeight is rapidly becoming my favorite political analysis site. This cycle has made me a bit of a poll junkie and their analysis and banks of graphs make my mouth water every time.

Agree, completely. They've done a fantastic job.

 

[Tamanon]

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=174545

For a little bit of levity. Cookie Monster!

 

[GhaleonEB]

Speaking of polls:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_latino_decisions_national.php

They ask Latinos in 21 "swing states" who they support. It's Obama by 63-24 overall. Dead heat in Florida.

 

[mckmas8808]

You just don't get it, do you?

Yes I get it. I would rather fight and get 15 percent more rights every 2 years than fight for 100 percent and never get it.

Its called logic.

 

[Skiptastic]

a little over the top i think

I'm not voting for Obama and wouldn't ever with his current stances, but the "over the top" part is what makes Obama look more presidential. The more you make someone appear presidential, the easier it is for them to be elected. You don't want to go small on these things.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I like it. Nothing says "don't believe the rumors you hear about me being a secret Muslim terrorist" quite like being around a copious number of American flags. There should be more flags, I say. Also, his suit should be entirely covered in American flag pins.

I saw that pic and thought, "Where's Obama?" Then I spotted his head buried behind the giant podium and logo.

Remember how he used to joke on the stump that he would sit at the table around which universal healthcare was being debated, saying "everyone would have a chair. I would have a bigger chair, of course, because I'd be President." Looks like he wasn't joking. :lol

 

[Gaborn]

I'm not voting for Obama and wouldn't ever with his current stances, but the "over the top" part is what makes Obama look more presidential. The more you make someone appear presidential, the easier it is for them to be elected. You don't want to go small on these things.

Although that didn't exactly work when Hillary was portrayed as the "inevitable" candidate.

 

[Tamanon]

WTF? Schuster is doing Hardball?

I thought there was a reason his hour was on earlier.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

*sigh* Obama isn't going to do anything as President.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Seems like you've got it pretty much exactly right on my end. I can't really quibble with your characterizations at all. Well, except that I contend McCain is better for the gay rights movement on MARRIAGE because of his opposition to it as well as civil unions.

Right, right, that's what I meant, sorry. I was just reading the past few pages and trying to sort it out. I haven't slept, and I just saw the "sunrise" over here.

"Sunrise" because the sky's been getting lighter since 4, but the sun doesn't appear until well over the horizon around 8ish. Love smog.

 

[Xdrive05]

*sigh* Obama isn't going to do anything as President.

Best job ever then?

 

[Mumei]

Yes I get it. I would rather fight and get 15 percent more rights every 2 years than fight for 100 percent and never get it.

Its called logic.

False dichotomy. <_<

 

[Gaborn]

Right, right, that's what I meant, sorry. I was just reading the past few pages and trying to sort it out. I haven't slept, and I just saw the "sunrise" over here.

"Sunrise" because the sky's been getting lighter since 4, but the sun doesn't appear until well over the horizon around 8ish. Love smog.

Heh, no problem, it's a bit of a fine distinction though an important one. Obama's probably better than McCain on a variety of gay rights issues, but on the most important one I don't see him as being better.

 

[minor effort]

John McCain's new & improved facebook page: now with video game!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/on-facebook-its-game-on-for-mccain

Taito should sue.

 

[Tamanon]

:lol at the RNC and the DNC communications directors arguing on Hardball over who flip-flops more.

 

[speculawyer]

John McCain's new & improved facebook page: now with video game!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/on-facebook-its-game-on-for-mccain

A space invaders clone? That is one of the oldest videogames known . . . oh wait.

But seriously . . . McCain will never get any fiscal conservative cred from me until he realizes that the Iraq war is one gigantic pork barrel project.

Like so many bad government projects, it started with some good intentions (I do believe there were some good intentions), but then it was completely mismanaged, then bad money was thrown after good, and now it is unkillable due to so many with vested interests (Halliburton, Blackwater, GOPers trying to save face, oil companies getting Iraq oil contracts, etc.).

 

[scorcho]

now all we need is an Obama salute and military uniform - i can't wait!

 

[Steve Youngblood]

That picture reminded me of this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2193798/

The Truth About Barack Obama

The Barack Obama presidential campaign introduced a new site last week, FightTheSmears.com, that it hopes will debunk persistent myths about the senator: that he's a Muslim, that he won't say the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. As we have argued before, restating the myths often reinforces them, no matter how persuasively they've been refuted.

Rather than restate untruths about Obama, the campaign would do better to start some rumors of its own. Here's a template e-mail the Obama campaign might consider disseminating.

From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Subject: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American's duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.

Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.

Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time he sees an American flag. He also ends every sentence by saying, "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." Click here for video of Obama quietly mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep.

A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.

Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.

Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.

Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It's upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.

There's only one artist on Barack Obama's iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.

Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.

Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW.

Barack Obama's new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.

Barack Obama's skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.

 

[mckmas8808]

Seems like you've got it pretty much exactly right on my end. I can't really quibble with your characterizations at all. Well, except that I contend McCain is better for the gay rights movement on MARRIAGE because of his opposition to it as well as civil unions.

But what about the superme court? You do know that McCain is waaaaaay worst in that regard to gay marriage right?

 

[Gaborn]

But what about the superme court? You do know that McCain is waaaaaay worst in that regard to gay marriage right?

Well, that depends. What I DON'T want to happen is for gay marriage to become the next abortion debate. Mandating it by the federal courts (as opposed to state courts mandating it based on the state's constitutions) would cause a massive backlash of popular sentiment. yes, it might grant us gay marriage faster in that sense, but could even give life to the FMA if they did it too soon. I think that if the Supreme court and other lower federal courts were to legalize gay marriage nation wide it would be better done when a majority of states has already enacted it (similar to the Loving case when a majority of states had already legalized interracial marriage)

 

[SouthernDragon]

But what about the superme court? You do know that McCain is waaaaaay worst in that regard to gay marriage right?

If he does that, he'll bring the issue to the forefront and with it, the injustices the gay community has to deal with. This would create popular unrest and dissatisfaction with the decision.

 

[mckmas8808]

That Obama logo is really nice looking. Its just too big.

Their artist are the best in politics. Its almost like Obama is becoming a brand.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why do so many people on TV say that Obama was against NAFTA before he was for it (which is within the last 3 weeks).

Wasn't Obama always for NAFTA?

 

[schuelma]

Why do so many people on TV say that Obama was against NAFTA before he was for it (which is within the last 3 weeks).

Wasn't Obama always for NAFTA?

He was guilty of some pretty bad anti-NAFTA rhetoric during the Ohio primary. Thankfully, it appears he was just pandering.

 

[kame-sennin]

The only people who care are political junkies. some deluded people who want to remove money from politics completely, regardless of the source and east coast editorial boards.

I find that odd considering how most of Gaf feels about the state of American politics today. People constantly complain that the Congress isn't doing it's job, that they cave to Bush and pass horrible laws, but does anyone wonder why? Bush doesn't have much political capital left, so that's certainly not an excuse. So why do we have the problems we do today?

Why did we go into Iraq/why are we still there?
Why don't we have true single-payer (European/Canadian) universal health care?
Why did Congress allow the sub-prime mortgage crisis to happen?
Why are gas prices so high?
Why do we spend more money on the military than on education?
Why are we fighting a war on drugs?
Why are our prisons overcrowded?

A lot of these issues are interrelated, but there is only one factor that connects them all. Each and every one of these problems have an opposite side that benefits private corporations: defense contractors, insurance companies, mortgage companies, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, prison contractors... All of these issues benefit someone, somewhere, and the people who benefit dump lots of money into Washington. They finance the campaigns of almost everyone in our government and they pay lobbyists to make sure that Congressmen and women pass laws that will benefit them, sometimes at the expense of the American people. It's not a secret and it's not hard to find out. All politicians are required to disclose where they get their money from by law, and there are plenty of websites that track that information. If you do the research, it won't take long to realize that when forced to chose between the interests of the American public, and the interests of those that finance their campaigns, most politicians will often chose the latter. When you consider this, how can anyone not think that removing money from politics is not one of the most important challenges we face today?

If you disagree with me, please provide me with an informed counter argument instead of quoting my avatar or calling me a nut, thanks.

Fake edit: I should mention that this post isn't a direct shot at Obama, as he's slightly cleaner than most.

 

[Gaborn]

Why do so many people on TV say that Obama was against NAFTA before he was for it (which is within the last 3 weeks).

Wasn't Obama always for NAFTA?

Well, apparently their point is now he's against NAFTA.

 

[kame-sennin]

He was guilty of some pretty bad anti-NAFTA rhetoric during the Ohio primary. Thankfully, it appears he was just pandering.

Joke post?

 

[schuelma]

Joke post?

I'm dead serious. (and I'm being honest that I'm glad he didn't really mean what he was saying- makes it more likely I'll vote for him)

 

[GhaleonEB]

Why do so many people on TV say that Obama was against NAFTA before he was for it (which is within the last 3 weeks).

Wasn't Obama always for NAFTA?

Yes.

I predicted this a while ago, but the media will try to paint any perceived Obama issue as equivalent to any McCain issue. See: "flip-flops". Obama flipped on public campaign funding (not really), therefore he flip flops just as much as McCain (which is bullshit). Obama screwed up by picking Jim Johnson due to his Countrywide mortgage deal, therefore Obama has just as many shady connections as McCain (also bullshit). The media will level the playing field as much as possible to keep it close. Which is no surprise after the primary. I still find myself disappointed, though.

Also, Hagel on veep:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/06/hagel_says_hed_consider_vp_off.php

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday he would consider serving as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate if asked, but he doesn't expect to be on any ticket.

Hagel's vocal criticism of the Bush administration since the 2003 invasion of Iraq has touched off speculation that if Obama were to pick a Republican running mate, it might be Hagel. Hagel said in an interview with The Associated Press that after devoting much of his life to his country — in the Senate and the U.S. Army — he would have to consider any offer.

"If it would occur, I would have to think about it," Hagel said. "I think anybody, anybody would have to consider it. Doesn't mean you'd do it, doesn't mean you'd accept it, could be too many gaps there, but you'd have to consider it, it's the only thing you could do. Why wouldn't you?"

I don't think it will happen for a million reasons, but it was an interesting response.

 

[sangreal]

He is a much more likely candidate for SoD

 

[Incognito]

Sums it up pretty well.

Question on 538: Why are only a portion of the comments displayed in Firefox and Safari? I opened up the comments in IE and I was able to read through all of them.

 

[Gaborn]

I'm dead serious. (and I'm being honest that I'm glad he didn't really mean what he was saying- makes it more likely I'll vote for him)

If he didn't mean what he said then, how do you know he doesn't mean what he's saying now? Or won't change his mind in the future?

 

[schuelma]

If he didn't mean what he said then, how do you know he doesn't mean what he's saying now? Or won't change his mind in the future?

Because candidates since the beginning of time have always pandered to their base during the primaries and then backtracked once they've secured the nomination. It's like a rite of passage.

 

[Gaborn]

Because candidates since the beginning of time have always pandered to their base during the primaries and then backtracked once they've secured the nomination. It's like a rite of passage.

Sure, but we won't have any idea what he REALLY plans to do until he gets into office assuming he wins.

 

[sangreal]

If he didn't mean what he said then, how do you know he doesn't mean what he's saying now? Or won't change his mind in the future?

Well in this case, he was caught pandering (lying) at the time (Canada-gate)

 

[schuelma]

Sure, but we won't have any idea what he REALLY plans to do until he gets into office assuming he wins.

Well, considering that to my knowledge his only hostility to NAFTA occurred right before the Ohio primary, I feel reasonably confident that he was just pandering- his recent quotes basically admit he "got caught up in the moment".

 

[Gaborn]

Well in this case, he was caught pandering (lying) at the time (Canada-gate)

Well, Canada gate was him claiming to the canadians that he was pandering. So he was telling Ohio that NAFTA was terrible, and telling Canada not to worry he was just pandering. What makes you believe he was telling the truth to Canada and not to the people of Ohio? for that matter what makes you think (if you indeed think that) that he won't pander to Ohio and work towards getting rid of NAFTA if he's elected? I'd think states such as Ohio are a little more important to a president than Canada so I'd tend to suspect he'll pander to them more.