The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

[yovargas]

And even worse, his explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeThckstKNE

Does he say he called a high school kid a little jerk?

[Primula Baggins]

He did, but I saw the clip on the news back when it happened, and he was joking. I don't think he liked the question the kid asked, but as I remember the incident, he was teasing, not insulting the kid.

[halplm]

Yes, that is very far out there. Look, I can only report on my own observations. But my basic point remains: the old ways of doing politics in this country need to change. And there is only one candidate for president who seems genuinely committed to bring about that change.

(And yes, I understand that you disagree with that, too. )

Here's the thing, though, and it's not about observation, it's about perception... if you're not watching for something, you won't see it. And most of us in our "political brains" are trained to see how bad the other side is, and only see the good in our own side. (And, in fact, in this election, I'm finding it ver hard to see good in my side at all, so I'm seeing all bad everywhere ) The point being, most negative stuff put out by our own side, we might notice, but we'll immediately dismiss it and move on. It doesn't concern us, because we either agree with it, or are not concerned with it.

Thus, our perceptions become "The other side always attacks us, while we just run clean campaigns! How dare they!"

[yovargas]

That's why you need someone around with no sides. Like me!

[WampusCat]

That's true, hal. People tend to notice whatever makes them mad.

I've found that even if I run an exactly even number of conservative and liberal columns on our op-ed page, I get calls from people saying that we only run conservatives or we only run liberals. They don't even notice the columns they agree with, but the ones they hate stick with them forever.

In the same way, the average person is more likely to notice attacks on his favorite candidate and dismiss attacks made by his favorite candidate.

[superwizard]

And is Hagee all that wrong about Islam? Can we really afford to contain it like we did Communism? Or is that an extended suicide pact?

I read this statement and thought at first it implied that we should -- am I misunderstanding something? -- try to do something more drastic to Islam than "contain" it. Can you explain what you have in mind, solicitr?

Coexistence is really not the same as suicide, in my book.

I also was hoping you could clarify your point solicitr

[Voronwë the Faithful]

superwizard, I greatly admire you.

soli, I too would be interested in an explanation of your comment.

[vison]

"Can we really afford to contain it like we did Communism?"

You know, that really needs no clarification. It's about as clear as things get.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not to me it isn't. Because Communism is a political ideology, whereas Islam is a religion. And (at least arguably) a high percentage of communists were committed to the overturning of the American system, whereas that can only be said of a very, very small percentage of Muslims. And not because they are Muslim, but rather because they are fanatics.

[nerdanel]

Yes, but assuming there is a continuum between "not containing" and flat-out genocide, it would be interesting to hear from soli where on that continuum he falls.

[vison]

Not to me it isn't. Because Communism is a political ideology, whereas Islam is a religion. And (at least arguably) a high percentage of communists were committed to the overturning of the American system, whereas that can only be said of a very, very small percentage of Muslims. And not because they are Muslim, but rather because they are fanatics.

Well, that was sorta my point.

[Jnyusa]

I probably agree with your conclusion V., but not with your reasoning. Those who were stridently opposed to communism did portray it as a religion, as the equivalent of a religion. I don't perceive much difference between the anti-Islamic rhetoric of today and the anti-communist rhetoric of the 50s and 60s. One of the underpinnings of neo-Con philosophy of divide and conquer in the Middle East is that we drew the wrong lesson from Vietnam and allowed the dominos to fall while we wimped out, so I think it is pretty much the same situation in their minds as well.

And I would be one of those "arguably" people who would argue that no appreciable percentage of the people trying to live out their lives in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, or Tanzania (self-identified as communist during the heyday) cared about overturning the American system. In that too, I don't see much difference between the US government portrayal of, say, Iran today and that of, say, Cuba in 1960. the pattern of mutual provocation by governments for purposes somewhat opaque to all the rest of us looks to me quite similar.

[vison]

I probably agree with your conclusion V., but not with your reasoning. Those who were stridently opposed to communism did portray it as a religion, as the equivalent of a religion. I don't perceive much difference between the anti-Islamic rhetoric of today and the anti-communist rhetoric of the 50s and 60s. One of the underpinnings of neo-Con philosophy of divide and conquer in the Middle East is that we drew the wrong lesson from Vietnam and allowed the dominos to fall while we wimped out, so I think it is pretty much the same situation in their minds as well.

And I would be one of those "arguably" people who would argue that no appreciable percentage of the people trying to live out their lives in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, or Tanzania (self-identified as communist during the heyday) cared about overturning the American system. In that too, I don't see much difference between the US government portrayal of, say, Iran today and that of, say, Cuba in 1960. the pattern of mutual provocation by governments for purposes somewhat opaque to all the rest of us looks to me quite similar.

Exactly.

I would say that far from wanting to overthrow the American system, most people enduring lives in Communist countries would have jumped at the chance to get to America and give it a try. If they knew about it, that is. Think of the boats from Cuba, and the people shot trying to cross the Berlin Wall.

A lot of people were taught, and believed, that in America things were no better than in Russia, etc. I've met a couple of oldsters from the Ukraine who got here in the 90's, and who were utterly blown away by how well-off their relatives here are. But that's a different thread.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Fair enough. The point that I really wanted to make was that Islam in and of itself poses no threat to America, just fanatics who happen to be Muslim. I certainly bow to both of your superior knowledge and experience regarding communism.

[Túrin Turambar]

A lot of people were taught, and believed, that in America things were no better than in Russia, etc.

Quite a few of them in the west and even in the United States itself, but that's also an issue for another thread.

[Jnyusa]

The point that I really wanted to make was that Islam in and of itself poses no threat to America, just fanatics who happen to be Muslim.

With this I certainly agree.

Quite a few of them in the west and even in the United States itself ...

Yes, that's quite true, Lord M. There was a great deal of initial admiration in the US for the face that Stalin succeeded to show to the world. When his insanities became known it was a very bitter pill to swallow. (So I've read - it was before my time.)

The admiration for proletarian revolution has to be understood in the context of the labor movement as a whole, remembering that unions were still illegal, workers in many industries were in perpetual debt to their employers because they were not paid in money but in goods that were inadequate for subsistence, and gangs like the Pinkerton squads routinely murdered workers who protested conditions. Not to mention child labor, seven-day work weeks, twelve-hour work days, etc. The international labor movement thought that Russia would be the vanguard, but as it turned out, the US union movement was the vanguard in labor rights, working primarily through legal means. Slower than a revolution, but more effective in the long run.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A bit of fun, with (in my opinion) more than a germ of truth.

The Empire Strikes Barack

[Cerin]

Did it ever occur to you, Voronwë, that Obama supporters are as guilty as they claim Clinton is, of the kind of 'evil' they accuse her of? It strikes me as so ironic, that they condemn Clinton for attacks on Obama and then turn around and engage in the same kinds of attacks on her.

One thing I've been wondering throughout this long season, both here and elsewhere, is why Obama supporters don't do more to emulate those qualities they see as so desirable in him, or try to embody the change they say they so fervently want to see him usher in. It seems to me that the more fervent the Obama supporter, the more enthusiastically they engage in the kind of conduct (speaking in internet terms) they decry in the Evil One.

[River]

Really?

Hmm.

Guess I'd better find time to make a hate site.

[Primula Baggins]

People do tend to notice, and pass on to other people, what offends and upsets them. For that reason, I've noticed and remember similar conduct among Clinton supporters. But I know that's a biased sample, and I wouldn't judge all Clinton supporters on that basis.

I'm sure most supporters of both candidates are decent people working in positive ways for the candidate they believe in. That's just not the kind of thing that gets sarcastic mentions on blogs or is emailed to friends lists.