US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Would you care to speculate as to why no news organizations are reporting this, even those news organizations like Fox that appear to be sympathetic to the current administration's policy in Iraq? I'm also curious as to how many soldiers you've talked to. I work on a military base, so I talk to a lot. My next door neighbor just returned from a second tour in Iraq. While I will readily concede that most in the military agree that there is a moral responsibility to stay there, it is strange that none of them have mentioned any of these improvements you reference.

 

Utter nonsense.

In Baghdad, power supply may worsen

Delay in maintenance work affects electricity supply

Keeping Iraq in the Dark

In the maximise-the-good & minimise-the-bad style that cheerfully reads like this: Southwest Baghdad Electricity Substation Adds Stability

Note the conspicuous absence of specific details about the actual level of supply, namely hours of electricity per day, througout the entire article.


Better than it has ever been? You gotta be kidding, us as much as yourself. 'Ever' is a long time. Iraq, before the war with Iran, once had 24 hours electricity in Baghdad, it was the second best developed country in the entire Middle East after Israel. It is now a very long shot away from that, US reconstruction aid notwithstanding. It takes time to build.

As for the extent of the damage the US caused in the wars, an illustration of what US 'surgical strikes' subjected the Iraqis to during Desert Storm:

Under the embargo, that means for the time since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991, the Iraqis were not able to buy spares, which were usually being denied by the US/UK controlled sanctions regime (power plant spares were designated dual-use technology), and after the war the US banned contracts for those manufactures from countries who opposed the war, but whose companies happened to have produced most of Iraqi power plants. This policy certainly didn't accelerate the reconstruction.

 

Ragusa's points are excellent here. The issue of allowing French, German, and Russian companies in to help rebuilding is touchy (in particular because those countries supplied the majority of arms to Iraq), but I think McCain will be more open to it than Bush was. Certainly, rebuilding is going to take longer than 16 months even if all barriers to rebuilding are eliminated -- the timeframe is the flaw in Obama's plan IMO.

 

That's a good point. It does make me think there must be a third option out there, one that would speed up progress without throwing the country into utter chaos (I should say even more into chaos). I cannot imagine what this third option would be though. About the only thing I can think of would be a massive change in the US military's handling of things in Iraq to actually make themselves not look like invaders anymore, but I can't see how the military can pull this off (the fact they are a constant target certainly doesn't help).

I seriously doubt McCain will involve the UN, mainly because the UN are a peacekeeping force. They are not allowed to actually fight and shoot at people, they're meant to be there to make sure other people don't shoot at each other. This would involve nicely asking the Iraqi insurgents/terrorists/whatever to stop blowing up civilians and US troops and nicely asking the US to stop shooting back. That's not going to have much of an effect. I do agree that Obama pulling out (if he does - see my previous post) will force the UN into to interfere to limit the damage of a full-blow civil war, but again there's not much they will be able to do. Somalia's an excellent example but there are others: Angola, Bosnia, Albania...

 

Sorry, 3 pages of posts on Obama v McCain - and not one mention of the race angle? Surely, this is one of the massive issues? There must be a significant core of people who are going to vote on only one criterion: namely whether they want a coloured person as president or not?

The real challenge will be how each side can woo their respective racist allies without coming across as racist themselves.

I can see this getting uglier before it gets prettier.

 

@HB,

Obama began his campaign over a year ago. I think the reality that a black man is running for president has set in by now - at least for most people. I don't think you're going to surprise too many people by saying, "Hey, I don't know if you noticed, but Barack Obama is black."

There are certainly racists in the US - no arguement there. However, being called a racist is the equivalent of the third rail in US politics. That's why the issue of race was avoided so much in the primary. Anyone trying to frame the election around race is almost sure to lose. Well, let me qualify that comment - if John McCain tries to frame the election around race, he's almost sure to lose.

There is an obvious double standard there - a white person who refuses to vote for Barack Obama because he is black is labelled a racist. A black person who votes for Barack Obama only because he is black is not labelled a racist.

 

It is safe to say that, according to the international press, McCain does not exist. In NZ, all we have seen is wall-to-wall Clinton vs Obama (to the extent that the average man in the street probably thought this was the actual presidential race). Now all the stories are about what its going to be like with Obama as president. McCain is so anonymous here, it's unbelievable.

 

Keep in mind that Obama wrapped up the nomination for the Democrats last week, while McCain wrapped up the nomination for the Republicans over three months ago. From a perspective of the press, continuing coverage of the Democratic primary battle was a far more entertaining story. Now, if the average citizen outside the US thinks the primary was the election, and that Obama is now the president, all I can say is that your press is doing you a disservice.

 

Now that the candidates have been set in stone, the international media will cover Mccain and Obama more.

I liked the earlier comments on race -- obviously die hard Republicans will vote Mccain, die hard Democrats will vote Obama, and the swing voters will decide it -- that's been established time and again. Of the swing voters, how many of them are going to be racist in the worst sense of the word and not vote for Obama because he's black? I'd say not many but more than some people would like to believe. What worries me is the swing voters who, for whatever reason, will be LABELLED as racists despite the fact that they have other reasons for believing that Obama is not the right man for the job. Certainly Hillary's crew consisted of some whiners crying "woman hating old boys' club" when she lost.

I sincerely doubt Mccain would go for a racially charged attack campaign -- some of his supporters might go for a religiously charged one. I think they're going to paint him as dangerously idealistic and inexperienced in foreign affairs, if not in executive matters overall.

 

That's because you can't use the 'N' word anymore.

The Candidates want to keep this to issues, and I'm fine with that. I would not be surprised if the racist groups come out on one side or the other, but then again, I think that groups like the KKK know that to embrace McCain would hurt him and drive voters to Obama, so thankfully they will keep their traps shut. Any racist influence is likely to be kept among the racist groups for just that reason.

But that would be more to appeal to the Religious voters. I still say that is the only reason that King George got re-elected...

 

It seems fairly obvious to my humble eyes that race will be a massive factor in the way the voting falls. Didn't Clinton get over 90% of the votes in some of those white hillbilly strongholds? Surely all those hicks are going to vote McCain, while all the Oprah wannabes will vote Obama, regardless of policies?

 

Clinton did not take 90% of the white vote in any state. Even in hillbilly heaven West Virginia - and believe me you don't get any more hillbilly than that - she managed 67% of the white vote. The only 90% figures you're going to see in the election is that there will be several states where Obama takes 90% of the black vote. However, 80% of blacks vote Democrat anyway, even when there are two white candidates, so I'm not sure race will be a massive factor.

The first post-primary poll has come out, with Obama leading among nearly all groups. His lead among blue collar workers is surprising, and his HUGE lead among women of all races (although the lead is bigger among black women than white women) and Hispanics is shocking, given that these are groups he wasn't supposed to do well with. About the only group that he trails McCain is white men. That is surprising, because that's a group Obama did well with in the primaries.

Here's the poll and accompanying article on MSNBC. If race is a factor, I only see it helping Obama.

 

Not too surprising though. Republicans always do better with white men than Democrats do. But I think you're right - race will play a factor, but a fairly negligible one.

 

It's not really the same thing. Voting against something is not the same as voting for something.

It's worth noting that as recently as late '07, a majority of black Dems polled supported Clinton, not Obama.

 

If they changed their mind from Clinton to Obama based on the issues, then that certainly isn't racism. However, when your choice of a candidate comes down to the color of his/her skin and not the content of his/her campaign, it's a racist decision. It doesn't matter who they previously supported. If they vote for Obama only because he's black it's racist. To me, it is exactly the same thing.

 

How can you saw it isnt the same thing?
In the given example:
person A who is white votes against obama because he is black not because of any political beliefs
person B who is black votes for obama because he is black not because of any political beliefs
it's racism either way.
Now your example was completely different, as voting for & against something IS different

 

"I'm voting for Obama because he's Black!"

Acceptable statement? Sure! Not racist at all, right?

"I'm voting for Mccain because he's White!"

Acceptable statement? Not bloody likely. The double standard is clear, and in the perceptions of the radical, liberal left (still in full-fledged self-flagellation for the slavery question that happened over a century ago) only whites can be racist. Blacks who exhibit similar behaviours are exempt from any criticism.

Honest minded people the world over from both the left and the right don't buy into that sort of nonsense, but sadly it still pervades the thinking of many Western people.

 

What does voting for someone because they're black mean? I have a pretty good idea what it means when you refuse to vote for someone because they're black; it means you feel blacks are inherently inferior to whites.

Does it follow that voting for a candidate because he's black means you feel blacks are inherently superior to whites? I don't believe so. I suspect it has more to do with believing the candidate will both better understand your experiences as a black American and do more to address issues of race. Because the candidate is more like you than the competition.

If that sounds racist, consider the lengths candidates--white candidates--go to in order to portray themselves as 'just plain folks'. Why do they do that? Because they believe--rightly, it seems--that people vote for candidates who are perceived to be more like them.

The color of your skin has a measurable impact on your experiences in America. It's not unreasonable to think that a random black man has more in common with another random black man than they would with a random white man. Or, if it is unreasonable to think that, it certainly isn't racist.

 

To put my point a different way, you seem to be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to blacks who vote for Obama (and by extension, do NOT vote for Mccain.) Are you willing to give that same consideration to whites who vote for Mccain?

In your case, AMaster, I believe you would. There's a large segment of frothing lunatics out there who would not be as reasonable as you, however.