I have never been very politically savy and often notice myself merely repeating what I have heard respected people around me saying about what is going on in our democracy. I have been trying extra hard this year to get interested in politics, understand the issues, and vote. Yes, I am embarrassed to say that I fit my demographic--I have never before voted. But I look forward to voting for my first time this November.
Because I don't always understand politics enough or have enough history following each of the candidates to catch or understand lies, over/understatements, I appreciate the following article. It breaks down inconsistencies and discrepencies for politically un-savy people like me. This article discusses last night's debate .
One thing my untrained mind picks up on, however, is that I can't find any substance to Obama's whole Hope and Change thing. What does that mean? Where is the substance? Obama scares me. He's creepy. And what creeps me out the most is that it seems like people only follow him because he's dynamic, not for what he stands for. I certainly do not understand what "Change" actually means in concrete terms. Spell it out for me Barack, because I can't seem to figure it out, at least when you speak! What does he stand for aside from some fluffy ideal of Hope and Change. Sure, I'd choose to eat lunch with Obama over McCain any day. And I don't particularly like McCain, but at least I feel like he has a little more concrete to his fluff. I don't want to say that Obama is akin to Hitler, but Hitler was charismatic, too. I just don't want to vote for a leader based on how fun and energized his public speaking is.
Anyway, check out the article from Factcheck.org and let me know what you think. PS, it does point out issues with both Obama and McCain, for those of you who don't agree with my ideas on Obama.
4 comments:
I enjoyed the article you posted about the debate. Thanks for pointing it out! I've found the McCain/Obama debates to be a bit anticlimactic and dull. I guess after following the candidates for the past 18 months, you've pretty much heard every thing they're going to say.
In regards to the Hope and Change complaint, I think that most of us would agree that those aren't substantive reasons to vote for someone anymore than you'd vote for someone because they are going to "get mavericky" and "shake up Washington." But, whether we like it or not, it's also clear that short phrases and sound bites are what stick in people's heads and so they are used again and again in campaigning (like when I handed out stickers in elementary school that said "Vote for Honest Abe"). I found it interesting the the Clinton campaign originally chose to put Hillary's "Experience" against Obama's "Change." That didn't work. Towards the end of her campaign they started touting "Change plus Experience." McCain's people apparently took note that Experience is no match for Change in this election, and so they straight up started using Obama's "Change" slogan as their own (I think they probably also did this to tick off Obama's people). I'm not sure what the latest slogan is for McCain, but for awhile both the democratic and republican nominees were using the exact same slogan!
You asked for Obama to spell it out for you...
He's written a book called "The Audacity of Hope" (you probably don't like the title, but the content of the book deals with issues). Granted, in the book he doesn't always say exactly what should be done in each case, but I appreciated seeing his thought process and it was reassuring to me to see him thoughtfully discussing both sides of controversial issues. Let's face it, most of the issues that people disagree on don't have a clear right or wrong answer. I appreciate a leader who can see reason on both sides of the issues.
The other sources I can think of for substance are the candidates' websites:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
And then I think that factcheck.org (the source of the article you posted) is a valuable reference for reality-checking the rhetoric.
I'm with you that "politics makes my brain hurt." I'm definitely getting tired of all the petty back-and-forth. It'll all be over in less than a month. Phew!
I'm getting pretty tired of politics as well lol. I went to a campus debate last night, and it just left me feeling kind of angry and flustered haha. I don't want you to get offended or anything about what Im saying, or think that I am in anyway saying your wrong but Im going to give my opinions on the matter.
My understanding of what "change" is is that it is a different approach from what the current/present administration has had for the past 8 years i guess. Which from what I see is a cut in national debt, diplomatic persuasion/influence on sketchy countries, and a focus on the homefront. John Mccain has supposedly fully supported George Bush 90% of the time... and Im not going to say that George Bush is as bad as they say on CNN but would you really vote for George Bush again if he was going to serve a 3rd term?
Its kind of funny, I heard a statistic that if you debate about politics long enough there is a 100% chance that someone will bring up Hitler or allude someone to Hitler eventually. Now I don't think you had any bad intentions on comparing that both Hitler and Obama have good charismatic skills, but every great leader in history has been charismatic (maybe except for Bush he slips up every once in awhile).
But I do see where you are coming from, people do get caught up in ideas without thinking. Now the whole thought of socialized healthcare comes up (which is what I think you were trying to allude), which I likewise don't like. But I do think an optional government provided health system thats funded through cutting of other "idle" funds seems more logical compared to John Mccains plan to tax you on your benefits. (who knows... universal healthcare is either going to work and be a benefit towards society, or its going to fail miserably and be another strike on the democrat party and a lesson learned against socialism).
The main reason I like Obama is he seems to actually have an agenda and a plan. Especially with the war in Iraq. His plan? Have power fully handed over to the Iraqi people by 2010. I don't see why people think this is such a BAD idea. Isn't that what we say the war is about? Lets be honest, is anyone else kind of pissed off at the justifications (not so much the justifications but the CHANGE in justifications) for the war in Iraq. It started out with the WMD's and the terrorist threat coming from them. Alright well they weren't there. Okay well now were going to get rid of Suddam... well he hung in the gallows like two years ago. Now were just lingering in Iraq to force democracy(oxymoron)on their people.
I think it would be easier to take if they would have initially just said "were going to invade Iraq to topple Suddam and his regime and strategically establish a democratic country to the region." Of course the rest of the world would not be okay with that idea... but maybe thats a sign that we shouldn't have done it in the first place.
I don't know lol sorry for the tangent. I guess im just trying to say Im not afraid to cross party lines if I actually believe the other candidate is better for the times.
I enjoyed your posts and colt and abe's comments. I agree with you that it is hard to really follow what is going on. I haven't decided who I am going to vote for yet :P
For anyone interested in healthcare politics, the New England Journal of Medicine just posted a video of a forum where they discuss the two candidates' plans.
http://www.nejm.org/perspective/health-care-reform-video/
Post a Comment