Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

Like I said, though, on many issues there is no middle ground. He seems willing to give? On what? Abortion? Tax policy? Iraq? Now granted, I don't know a while lot about his pre US Senate career, but what do you base that on besides speeches of "hope" and "change", especially when looking at his agenda and knowing that there will be HUGE opposition to a large porion of it from the right?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

There are leaders and nations that don't want to talk, they want the destruction of America or Israel or freedom in general. Abortion is not an issue of compromise for those that believe a fetus is living and those that believe it is a complete issue of the woman's body. Even Iraq is not open to compromise. There are serious issues that people of passion and conscience on both sides cannot compromise on.

I think sometimes people get focused on solutions instead of the underlying problem. Sure there are people focused on the destruction of America - is the only solution their destruction? If the real goal is not wanting people to want to destroy us maybe there are other solutions?

Abortion - If the real goal is preventing abortion, maybe we could also focus on preventing the situations where people come to contemplate abortion?

I think there is always room for conversation and a bit of "root-cause analysis" to find solutions that may not be so black and white - but that's hard work and takes longer than a 15-second sound bite to explain.

The real fact is politicians need the divisiveness to define themselves. If they want to be elected they must paint their opponent as a demon since most of us vote with our gut and not with our head, preferring to rationalize our decisions after we have made them.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by blueerica

Well, I know that McCain's song is Mellencamp's "Pink Houses." What are the songs from the others?

Edited to add: I just read that McCain has Mellencamp's "Our Country" - which would be really annoying... When Edwards used it, it sucked, too. I had read earlier that it was "Pink Houses" which I love... bleh.

I should go look it up. Maybe I can vote best on best taste in campaign songs...

Edit to add II: OK, so Clinton is Celine Dion's "Taking Chances"... bleh.

Here's some info on the candidates' choice of music.

[Not Afraid]

As I've said before, I think Obama talks a great talk. I'm sure he means well, but I doubt he has the capacity or experience to "make it work" (to borrow another catchy and popular phrase). It's not that I don't like what he believes in - Clinton and Obama are pretty much carbon copies of each other with slight differences in ephemera. Either one would probably have the same results as President. I'm just not falling for his rhetoric and I think it his pie-in-the-sky proposals are terribly unrealistic. But, it's what people want to hear at the moment, and I don't blame them. Eight years of Bush has taken his toll. I will vote for whomever the Dem candidate ends up being because, what other choice do I have? I'm just not convinced that Obama can deliver and we REALLY need deliverance at the moment.

[Prudence]

A lot of "polarization" comes from refusing to acknowledge shared values and focusing exclusively on the differences. Abortion's already been mentioned at least twice, so let's take that as an example. Perhaps the democratic party has as one objective ensuring that abortion remains a legal medical procedure. Perhaps the opposite side of the aisle has on objective ensuring that abortion is made illegal. Described in that fashion, they are polar opposites. And if that's where we remain, what is the point of any of this?

An effective leader is able to highlight the shared values from seemingly disparate viewpoints and direct the energies from all sides toward accomplishing those mutual goals. In the case of abortion, both sides presumably wish to reduce the number of abortions. There might not be agreement on how to accomplish that, but a shared goal is a start.

It's a concept that's broadly applicable. What is the shared goal in Iraq? Or in foreign policy in general? At the end of the day, most of us want jobs that pay enough for us to meet our bills and have a little discretionary left over. We want appropriate food, shelter, clothing, and access to services. We want to feel that we have some equality of opportunity - that if we have the necessary skill and put forth the necessary effort our reward will be similar to that of others with similar skills and effort. We want to feel safe in our homes and not worry that our kids might be killed or molested at school.

That's a lot of commonality that's all too readily ignored in our national obsession with aligning ourselves with "causes".

[sleepyjeff]

I am actually pro-decisiveness....the more they argue over how to screw us the less they will actually screw us

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

I am actually pro-decisiveness....the more they argue over how to screw us the less they will actually screw us

I think you mean "divisiveness."

[blueerica]

Yeah, last thing we want are decisions being made! Especially in the government!

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by blueerica

Well, I know that McCain's song is Mellencamp's "Pink Houses." What are the songs from the others?

Edited to add: I just read that McCain has Mellencamp's "Our Country" - which would be really annoying... When Edwards used it, it sucked, too. I had read earlier that it was "Pink Houses" which I love... bleh.

As noted in Mousepod's link, McCain was asked by Mellencamp to not use either song. He was also asked by ABBA to not use "Take a Chance."

Originally Posted by blueerica

I should go look it up. Maybe I can vote best on best taste in campaign songs...

Edit to add II: OK, so Clinton is Celine Dion's "Taking Chances"... bleh.

I always thought that Bill Clinton's theme song should have been Pink Floyd's "Have a Cigar." Maybe Hillary could adopt it.

[wendybeth]

I think that's cool about your brother, CP- I have voted for two Republicans in local elections this past year, because I felt they were the best candidates for the job. I have no patience with people who vote along party lines simply because the candidate is put out there by the party. It should be the best person for the job, period. Everyone on here seems very informed and are making their decisions based on their candidate's platform and ideology- something I wish a lot of other people I know irl would do.