Yes, we can.

[BarTopDancer]

Obama has a better chance of bringing opposing sides to middle ground then anyone else running. It does not appear that Obama will not budge for the sake of not budging. If the other side is willing to give, it seems he will be willing to give to. I don't hold that same view of Clinton or McCain.

My not wanting Clinton to win has nothing to do with returning Bill to the White House. I don't like how she comes across. I don't think she will be willing to compromise. I think she will be a "my way or the highway" President.

I think America is ready for a female President. I don't think that the best candidate for this election is H. Clinton. Nothing to do with her gender.

[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?

[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."

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I think you mean "divisiveness."

Maybe....

[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.