@okie,
okie, basically I feel about Obama the way you feel about McCain. He wasn't my first choice, but I can live with him, and I prefer him to his opponent.
But I'm really tired of hearing the word "liberal" bandied about, generally inaccurately, and being used as a slur and as synonymous with "Democrat". If we want to have meaningful discussions, whether in A2K or on the national stage, it really helps if we define our terms and use them with some precision.
I can tell you how I think of, and use, the word "liberal". For me the term refers to two seperate dimensions on the political spectrum. The first dimension is the liberal--conservative balance of power scale in terms of commitment to states' rights vs federal government control, and in terms of state funding vs federal funding. In my mind, this is the original, and most appropriate, use of the term. Then there is the liberal--conservative social values continuum, things like pro-choice vs pro-life, gay marriage, and support, or non support, for various social welfare programs. People may not always fall in the same part of the continuum on these two spectrums--one can be conservative in terms of balance of power, but liberal in terms of social issues or vice versa. And most people are not at the extremes on either of these scales. Most people, including most elected officials, fall closer toward the middle (or centrist) position.
I do think the Democratic party is more liberal, on both dimensions, than the Republican party, but most Democrats are hardly radical liberals, they are closer to the middle. On the other side, McCain is not really a strong Conservative on either dimension, he's much closer to the middle. Palin, however is a radical conservative in terms of social values, and she's probably a radical Conservative on the power balance dimension as well, if she had any association with a group that would like to see Alaska secede from the union. On the other hand, as a governor, she's all too willing to put out her grubby hands to scoop up those earmarked federal funds, so she'd like to have her cake and eat it too. But, since she's now speaking against such earmarked funds, I guess we can consider her a genuine radical Conservative, albeit a hypocritical one.
And when, and why, did we suddenly start using the word "elitist", and what on earth does it mean?
Does it refer to people who worked their way up, the hard way, got good educations, and then moved into positions of power and influence through their own abilities and accomplishments? Seems to me, that's not "elitest", it's the American dream. Why are such people now considered out of touch with average Americans? They came from average backgrounds and lead basically average lives, except they have now achieved a position of influence/prominence. Why are these people, who finally "made it" now tagged as "elitest"? Why aren't they considered genuine success stories?
On the other hand, not considered "elitest" is George Bush, son of a president, grandson of a U.S. senator (a politically patrician background if there ever was one) and a graduate of both Yale and Harvard (aren't those East coast elitest ivy league schools?). Bush manages to convince people he's just "one of the guys", and unthinking people buy this crap. McCain, the son of an Admiral (not exactly an average background), and a man so currently wealthy he cannot remember how many homes he owns, is seen as another non-elitest "everyman".
If we are ever to have meaningful political discussions in this country, I think we have to stop the name-calling and labeling, and sterotyping, such as "liberal", and "elitest", and "un-American"--almost all of which comes from the Republican camp--and really begin to discuss the issues, and the pros and cons of each candidate's solutions, without getting caught up in a lot of emotional hype that does nothing but distract from what's really important.
Recently, McCain's campaign manager made an astounding statement.
Quote:Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.
"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."
Davis added that issues will no doubt play a major role in the decisions undecided voters will make but that they won't ultimately be conclusive. He added that the campaign has "ultimate faith" in the idea that the more voters get to know McCain and Barack Obama, the better the Republican nominee will do.
Think about that. The issues take a backseat to what voters think about a candidate's personality. Therefore, you must denigrate or smear or negatively distort, your opponent's personality or character in order to win this election, at least in the eyes of McCain's campaign manager. This is the gameplan of McCain/Palin. This is the reform we want? This will reduce partisan divisiveness? This will help voters to make a clear choice of leaders based on the issues? This is the same old smoke and mirrors garbage that got Bush elected, and will give us four more years of the same.
You and your kind are on the same sinking ship (Obama) and none of you recognize your worsening situation - I hope you can tread water 
