Go To:
Contact:
Polls:
Other Notable Sites
This sounds like a contradiction in terms. If you want to win - and nothing is more important than winning - then you must do everything to denigrate and ruin the reputation of your opponent. This nasty politics has been with us for a long time. However, yesterday's debate between John McCain and Barack Obama proves that nasty is not always the best approach. Nice guys finish first.
All the journalists, pundits and commentators said that McCain was angry and Obama was calm, that McCain was throwing insults and Obama deflected them. that McCain's face kept changing colors as his frustration grew and Obama was unperturbed. This is why they claim Obama "won" and McCain "lost." A superficial look may bring you to this conclusion. But Obama "won" for a more important reason: he emphasized civility.
McCain followed the tried and true approach of Atwater and Karl Rove - the Republican approach. The Republican approach may be summarize with one word: "Attack." Distortion? Yes. Smear? Yes. Lies? Yes. Character assassination? Yes. Whatever it takes. To paraphrase an old expression everything is fair in love and politics.
Michael Seitzman summarizes the Republican approach neatly:
Mccain and Palin and their ilk don't laugh. They patronize. They don't smile, they snicker. They don't debate, they denigrate. They don't talk, they condescend. They don't argue, they ridicule. There is a nastiness, a mean-spiritedness, a smug certitude, and a profound and baseless arrogance seething from both of them. These aren't leaders. They're not even grownups. They're not a team of mavericks, they're a team of schmendricks (Yiddish. Means someone who can't succeed but thinks he can. Also means penis).
From the very beginning Obama was urged to attack. When Hillary unleashed some bad attacks, he was again urged to attack. He resisted. When McCain went wild with attacks, he resisted. When Palin was chosen, all the Republicans were excited because here was someone who loves to attack. And attack she did. Obama resisted.
Friends of Obama are still encouraging him to attack. But by now he has proven that his civil approach works. The same people who were encouraging McCain to attack are now saying that he "lost" because he attacked too much. No, McCain did not "lose" because of his wild accusations but Obama "won" because of his civility.
As Obama says we can disagree with each other without being disagreeable. Obama has introduced us to civil politics, a politics that will make all our other interactions more civil. Just what we need.



![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0f00db74-ac44-4441-9d04-508e183b83c2)

8:59 AM, 10 22 2008 | Permalink
There was a time when I though McCain was more honest, fair minded, and had more integrity.
Not anymore.
McCain is going to lose the election, which is good.
Unfortunately, it's not a huge relief, since Obama also despicably pits Americans and illegal aliens aginast each other for votes , profits , and (supposedly, but severely misplaced) compassion.
Both Obama's and McCain's voting records and positions stink, but John McCain's stinks worse.
Thus, this election, voters are faced with trying to decide which pile of crap stinks worse.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Reply to this comment