Some of the people...
Nov. 7th, 2008 11:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
skyringOK, it was the end of a twelve hour shift at the end of a week of same and maybe I didn't express myself clearly.
I thank everyone for giving their opinion.
I agree with those who commentated, yes, if McCain had given better speeches, he might have won. That's the point. But that's not what the original poster was saying.
Here's my paraphrase, watering down the original poster:
...it's a good thing his past speeches weren't like that, otherwise he might have won.
She wasn't saying that if he'd given better speeches McCain might have won. That's just stating the obvious. She was saying, in strong terms, that it was a good thing he wasn't more attractive to the voters. Otherwise he might have won.
Well, just how do you judge a political candidate? How do you make your mind up who to vote for? Wouldn't the things a candidate says in public be an excellent way of deciding whether to vote for him or her? Isn't that precisely how Obama won his magnificent victory?
I think that the original poster was saying that the people can be fooled by what a candidate says, but she can't.
She's not an American, but she knows better than the American people which way they should vote. Regardless of what the candidates actually say to their fellow Americans.
Well, I disagree with that attitude, and I disagree strongly. The bottom line is that in America, after more than two centuries the strong and thriving ancestral home of modern democracy, the voters get a chance to vote any way they please for whatever private reasons they have.
I thank everyone for giving their opinion.
I agree with those who commentated, yes, if McCain had given better speeches, he might have won. That's the point. But that's not what the original poster was saying.
Here's my paraphrase, watering down the original poster:
...it's a good thing his past speeches weren't like that, otherwise he might have won.
She wasn't saying that if he'd given better speeches McCain might have won. That's just stating the obvious. She was saying, in strong terms, that it was a good thing he wasn't more attractive to the voters. Otherwise he might have won.
Well, just how do you judge a political candidate? How do you make your mind up who to vote for? Wouldn't the things a candidate says in public be an excellent way of deciding whether to vote for him or her? Isn't that precisely how Obama won his magnificent victory?
I think that the original poster was saying that the people can be fooled by what a candidate says, but she can't.
She's not an American, but she knows better than the American people which way they should vote. Regardless of what the candidates actually say to their fellow Americans.
Well, I disagree with that attitude, and I disagree strongly. The bottom line is that in America, after more than two centuries the strong and thriving ancestral home of modern democracy, the voters get a chance to vote any way they please for whatever private reasons they have.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-09 12:13 am (UTC)I dare say that the Reverend Tim Costello thought that his plan to shield the voting public from candidates he didn't like was a capital idea, rather than an elitist and arrogant attack on the foundations of democracy.
And I see other people similarly blinkered. Zealots who put their own well-meaning notions above all. Maybe they act polite when they knock on your door in their neat suits, religious tracts in hand, but they follow a higher ideal than you and I, and they know better.
Looking back on the public postings of the lady in question, I see the same sort of attitude. I see years of frustration, hatred, anger and stress when discussing US politics.
I see a lot of other things. Some quite bizarre and rude posts in the BC forums.
Now, I wasn't writing to attack or offend anybody with my original post. I read her statement about McCain, and my response was immediate and unforced, as a general criticism of a certain attitude. I didn't mention anybody specifically.
My own reaction to Obama's election was heartfelt and positive. Realistically, I preferred Hillary Clinton, but that didn't happen. McCain, I thought, was far too old in mind and body, with a good chance of not lasting the term out, and Sarah Palin ready to step into his shoes.
But that's my opinion, irrelevant, largely kept to myself, and not founded exclusively on a hatred of Bush.
On the subject of hatred, the tone of the messages sent by this lady to my friends make any question of an apology or retraction doubly inappropriate.