Perfectly illustrating my point actually.  This fantasy thing is not at all what I was driving at, but the campaign was and thats why they were unable to make people care, and its why folks who haven't looked into the issue (like yourself and Rubang) think that this type of conclusion is all there is to get from it. 

If my conclusion is the correct one, than how am I not looking into it?

I am and was perfectly aware of the type of person he is.  He's a power hungry elitist but he's also a transparent, motivational, pragmatic, intelligent , moderate tempered man.

Bush was a moralist but a power hungry, elitist, intellectually incurious, weak-minded ideologue.

McCain was intelligent but an angry, short-sighted, loose canon.

Palin was strong-willed but an intellectually incurious, politically inept (past her base), and racist or at least incited racism.

All had their good and bad, only one is what the country needs right now.

"If my conclusion is the correct one, than how am I not looking into it?"

That wasn't what sqrl wrote.

And I really don't agree with your assumptions about the candidates personalities. They seem to be based on media stereotypes of them, rather than actual examinations of those people.

In his book Obama says he moved to Chicago to get into community organizing and said the community organizing scene was gridlocked with bureaucracy and apathy, so he joined the local church and started hanging out with Jeremiah Wright, an important community leader there. I think these guys were all stepping stones for him. I think his lack of parents at a young age along with being one of 3 black kids at an all-Asian school and being raised by white racist grandparents left him emotionally/spiritually empty, and he could only fill this vacuum with POWER, and he stormed his way to the top super fast. He'll be our 4th youngest president (only 15 days older than Bill Clinton). Luckily, like Steven said, he's also really smart and pragmatic, so he's kind of the opposite of Bush, which is exactly what we need.


I don't know why people expect Obama to have either refused to work with Ayers or to have flipped out and tried to get Ayers fired so he could work without him. What would you guys have done in his shoes if offered that position? If any of you have ever worked on a similar board, have you quit because you didn't like somebody's past? If I was Obama, I would've worked with him, and then I'd become president and forget about him.

Besides, many politicians are inspired by evil people, and they still get elected. Schwarzaneggar has called Hitler a role model before, and he still got elected.

The descriptions are fairly accurate for how the respective people were acting during the campaign.  McCain isn't like that, but he was acting like that during the campaign, which is one reason why voters turned away from him.

Here is a CNN article about the recent Republican Governors' Association meeting:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/13/awkward-press-conference-for-palin/

From CNN's Dana Bash

Palin's pres conference was changed at the last minute.

MIAMI (CNN) – Two hours before Thursday morning’s press conference at the Republican Governors Association — her first since the Republican presidential ticket lost last week — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was still scheduled to appear alone. Instead, she spoke with a row of fellow governors standing silently behind her.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told CNN producer Evan Glass that they all met at 9 a.m. — an hour-and-a-half before the press conference’s scheduled start time — and by then it had been "decided" that they'd all go out together.

An RGA official told CNN the reason for the change is a "long story."

He said that when the governors were all at their private morning meeting, someone brought up the desire to get beyond what happened in the McCain campaign and look towards 2009 and 2010.

Then, this source said, Palin piped up and said she agreed that she didn't want to talk about the past.

This source insists that it was then decided that the other governors in the meeting would go with her to her press conference as a "show of unity."

The source admitted that it may not have been easy for some "big egos" to go in and stand behind her, but they knew they'd be doing so.

Not present: the conference host, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. A Florida GOP source tells CNN "he didn't know about it,” because he wasn't at the morning meeting.

In another shift, Palin — who had been slated to take questions for 20 minutes or so — took just four press queries.

Why did Texas Gov. Rick Perry cut it off so fast?

"We were running behind schedule," insisted the GOP official.

Palin may not have wanted to talk about the past, but her speech was almost entirely about the McCain campaign; she included little in the way of detailed ideas about the way forward for Republicans, the theme of the panel.

McCain didn't act short sighted and angry during the campaign. I don't know where that started. Was that just how people were interpreting his actions?

And If obama acted that way, all that proved was that he knew how to look good during a campaign, that and the media doing their best to make him look good.

McCain was very shortsighted when he said the economy was doing well, and then when he realized it was falling apart (and taking his campaign with it), he told everybody he could solve it. He also said he could find Bin Laden. He makes weird vague promises like he can instantly do them.

And before you say "Obama does that too," Obama is always saying it's a long hard uphill battle and we all have to work together, blah blah blah, whereas McCain says "I will rush to Washington to save the day!"

The whole McCain campaign jumped around from message to message. First it was about McCain's experience and Obama's lack of experience. Then it was about change and reform (no idea why, that was Obama's territory). Then it was about Ayers. Then it just fell apart at the end and it was about awesome SNL appearances but not serious campaigning.

I never said your conclusion was entirely correct, this isn't a binary choice after all. I was simply saying that I wasn't arguing towards the "fantasy" scenario you mentioned.  While I agree that political expedience was certainly a goal of his I think the proposition that this was the entire picture is largely betrayed by the facts.

For example, Obama initially stuck up for Wright claiming he could not disown him, even when Wright was toxic and served him no political purpose he stuck with him until he was absolutely forced to disown him. This suggests loyalty not political smarts, unfortunately this loyalty is to a man that many people find disturbing (rightly or wrongly).

Similarly he refused to denounce Ayers and instead only denounced the acts of 30 years ago specifically.  Again an odd sort of statement where rather than simply a universal denunciation he only denounced the specific acts. A strong and emphatic statement is the politically expedient thing to do, a precise statement is..perhaps not loyal, but certainly not politically optimal.

If his mindset with these now disreputable individuals was purely that of extracting the most political advantage I don't think he would have hesitated to cut them off and move on.  But I do agree that the political advantage was a sizable motive for his relationships, just not the entire motive.  I think he did have common ground with these people, and probably not the superbly radical stuff people are assuming it to be.  But by not addressing the issue head on he left it open to interpretation, and since the campaign is over that is where it is likely to remain...unless of course he appoints Ayers as SecDef...because at that point I might start leaning towards the fantasy scenario =P

And while I'm on the subject the true fantasy scenario is where Obama was trained by Saul Alinsky and Louis Farrakhan with the money of Rezko and a mysterious Saudi millionaire (ie Bin Laden).  If you want to go for crazy you gotta really sell out to it ;)

Anyways, I won't argue with your characterizations since they're just your opinion. 

@sqrl: His refusal disown or denounce people is all part of his act. It's part of his non-aggressive, non-committal image.

@lord: McCain was intelligent, the media didn't paint him out that way. They painted him like a bumbling idiot but it wasn't all their fault; and McCain gave them a lot to work with this election cycle - he ran a horrible campaign and made mistake after mistake.

The media (as in the news, not O'Reilly, Hannity, Mathews, or Olberman) didn't go out of their way to make anyone look good or bad , Shepard from Fox actually said it best, it's national sentiment and performance during the campaign.

My opinions of Bush are from his behavior over the last 8 years. My opinion of Palin is from her interviews before and after the election along with reading old news stories from Alaska.

The media didn't convince high level Republicans to endorse or semi-endorse Obama. Senators Lugar and Chuck Hagel, Collin Powell, and all the rest got to meet him and/or work with him. He won over democrats, from Lewis and Emil Jones Jr. to Richardson, Kerry, and Kennedy.

Wait I thought I was the one with the fantasy scenario =P 

I'm partially joking, or in other words I know what your driving at but I'm not really convinced by it.

In regards to Obama's presidency, I'm very much in a wait and see mode right now.  I have no doubt Obama is skilled and capable when it comes to getting himself elected, my doubts rest entirely with his ability to be a true leader and perform the duties of the office with the efficiency and judgment that is requried.  And the only person who is going to convince me on those two points is Obama himself, and he won't be able to do it with words (and not just because of who he is). Actions truly do speak louder than words, and Obama's actions will tell me all I need to know about whether he is truly up to the job, but it will be a few months before even the early results start coming in on that poll.