| # | Author | Message |
71
| Dabob2
Fri 5/16/2008 12:13p | <pointing out that unnerving stuff has been coming up>
It's only unnerving if you allow yourself to be unnerved by ephemera. |
72
| ecdc
Fri 5/16/2008 12:32p | >>It's only unnerving if you allow yourself to be unnerved by ephemera.<<
Precisely. It's unnerving because people don't like Obama's politics and so they let something as superficial as a freakin' flag pin justify their "unease." Just say you don't like the man's politics and say why. There's really no need to invent non-issues (hard as some might try). |
73
| DlandDug
Fri 5/16/2008 12:43p | This has gone far afield from the original assertion:
>>It's not that some believe they know something about the "real" Obama. It's the nagging doubt about what we don't know. Hillary and McCain's negatives are pretty much out there for all to see. But with Obama we are still in the fun house aspect of his candidacy. Unnerving stuff keeps popping up. And there's this unease that the worst of it may not appear until after the election.
True, it's irrational. But it's real.<<
It actually has nothing to do with liking or disliking Obama or his politics. It has everything to do with the feeling that we still are finding out who the "real" Obama is. That's what predicated this whole discussion in the first place.
Tell the truth. If you could go back to 2000, knowing what you now know about the "real" George W. Bush, would it make a difference in how you viewed him as a candidate? |
74
| mele
Fri 5/16/2008 1:00p | <<Tell the truth. If you could go back to 2000, knowing what you now know about the "real" George W. Bush, would it make a difference in how you viewed him as a candidate?>>
To tell the truth, I knew it was going to be *bad*...that's why I went out and bought a cheesecake to drown my sorrows in on election night. |
75
| Kar2oonMan
Fri 5/16/2008 1:10p | >> It's that we don't know. And it unnerves some of us.<<
We don't "know" what any candidate will actually do. We could be just as unnerved about any of them. |
76
| Kar2oonMan
Fri 5/16/2008 1:13p | >>Tell the truth. If you could go back to 2000, knowing what you now know about the "real" George W. Bush, would it make a difference in how you viewed him as a candidate?<<
Absolutely. But unless we develop time travel, no one will know what any of teh candidates "real" selves will be. |
77
| ecdc
Fri 5/16/2008 1:27p | >>Absolutely. But unless we develop time travel, no one will know what any of teh candidates "real" selves will be.<<
Exactly. If anything, I'd think one should be much more uneasy about McCain or Clinton, both of whom have been all too willing to say whatever they need to say to get elected. McCain's gone from being critical of Bush to being buddy-buddy with him and his policies.
Any number of things have come out about these candidates that could be eye raisers. I'd be more concerned about McCain not knowing the difference between al Qaeda, Sunnis, and Shias than I would the lack of a flag lapel. But, I think McCain does know the difference and simply made a gaff that's easy to make when you're tired on the campaign trail. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt than invent a fake controversy - like, say, over someone's preacher or the Pledge of Allegiance. |
78
| ecdc
Fri 5/16/2008 1:31p | >>I'd be more concerned about McCain not knowing the difference between al Qaeda, Sunnis, and Shias<<
Wow, I worded that terribly in my rush of typing. Try, "I'd be more concerned about McCain not knowing the difference between Sunni al Qaeda and Shi'ite Iran." |
79
| Kar2oonMan
Fri 5/16/2008 1:32p | A fresh perspective...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...7grwgKx8 |
80
| DlandDug
Fri 5/16/2008 2:54p | >>We don't "know" what any candidate will actually do. We could be just as unnerved about any of them.<<
To an great extent, that is true. With McCain and Clinton there is much more sense of who they are and what they stand for. With Obama it's not so sure. As I have consistently said, it may be irrational, but it's a real consideration. |
