Sorry to post so much so soon this morning but I've read a couple of good articles this morning...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... ility.html
In this campaign, partisans find it difficult to stay faithful to their principles from one news cycle to another.
One minute, Republicans oppose affirmative action; the next, they're using it to pick their party's vice presidential nominee. One minute, Democrats are praising working-class Americans who live outside Washington; the next, they're trying to discredit one of them when she dares to run against them on the Republican ticket.
Recently, a self-identified Democrat informed me that Sarah Palin was an unacceptable choice for vice president because our elected officials should embody the highest standards of excellence, and not simply be someone with whom you'd like to have a beer.
Mischievously, I wrote back: "Fair enough. So I can assume that, in 1992, you voted for Republican George H.W. Bush and not Democrat Bill Clinton?"
Democrats conveniently forget that Bush 41, with his lifetime of public service, had the more substantial resume. Clinton was dismissed by many pundits as an untested lightweight, especially in the area of foreign policy. One quip had it that the closest Clinton had come to foreign affairs was "having breakfast once at the International House of Pancakes." H. Ross Perot warned that elevating the governor of Arkansas to the presidency was like taking the owner of a mom-and-pop store and making him the CEO of Wal-Mart.
But Clinton had an ace up his sleeve -- likability. It's something that graduate school professors might gloss over when they lecture about leadership. The elites tend to downplay its importance in favor of other attributes such as intelligence, compassion, decisiveness, or what Bush 41 glibly referred to as the "vision thing." Yet, this one quality can be more helpful than all the others put together when it comes time to close the deal with voters.
In the end, Clinton was to many voters more likable than either of his opponents. He may have been a Rhodes scholar and a graduate of Yale Law School, but what his campaign honed was his ability to relate to everyday Americans. In politics, that is money in the bank.
Now, polls show Obama with a slight lead over McCain, and the Republican is powerless to do anything about it. It seems that when McCain is too soft on Obama, he slips in the polls. And if he's too hard on him, he slips even further.
Many Americans believe that Obama has gotten the better of McCain in the debates. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey conducted after the second match-up, 54 percent of respondents said that Obama performed better. Only 30 percent said that about McCain. After the first debate on Sept. 26, the same survey found that 51 percent thought Obama did a better job, and 38 percent gave the nod to McCain.
I submit this has something to do with the fact that, to many voters, Obama has emerged as the more likable candidate. After the second debate, 64 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of Obama; 51 percent said that about McCain. It probably didn't help when, in last week's debate, McCain pointed to Obama and referred to him as "that one."
McCain lost the first debate in part because he was dismissive and disrespectful. He wouldn't even look at Obama and address him directly, even when moderator Jim Lehrer had asked both candidates to speak to one another. McCain lost the second debate because, in going negative, he came across as sour, petty, and desperate.
In the poll, 63 percent said they thought McCain spent more time on the attack during the second debate, as opposed to just 17 percent who said that about Obama. And by a wide margin -- more than 15 points -- most respondents said that McCain came across as more the "typical politician."
You would think that candidates for elective office, particularly those such as McCain who have spent so much time in politics, would have a better understanding of what debates are really about. Candidates often mistake these events for opportunities to take their opponent down a notch and show everyone how smart they are.
But debates aren't a quiz. They're an audition. The candidates are trying out for a job that will put them in our living rooms for at least the next four years and perhaps longer. And then, depending on how likable they are, we get to decide whether we want to invite them in.
None of which bother me. But yeah, the shit toward black people is far worse and often violent.
1/2 the country is Republican so don't lump everyone together John