suck it up, Eric

I love this post from fivethirtyeight.com because it hits the nail on the head. Liberals (like myself), as Psimet points out, need to stop worrying about the behavior of the other side. Spending too much time trying to figure out why the attacks are so personal waste time. Barak Obama seems to get it too -- his focus the past few days has been all on content.

The better summation:

A simple difference

Barack Obama:

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook.

So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.

The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

And from last night (Giuliani):

They would have acted in their self-interest, and they would have changed
their position in order to win an election. How many times have we seen Barack
Obama do this? [shortly after suggesting McCain would do no such thing]

Of course, we have seen multiple changes in McCain's position this year (on torture, campaign finance reform, immigration reform, tax cuts, Roe v. Wade, etc). We also see that the speeches at the Republican convention cannot rise above making it about mockery -- why? Why does it have to be about insult?

We'll see what the mocking does in the polls in the next few days and weeks.

bike-run

Nice relaxing bike ride today, followed by a light 20 minute run, though my heart rate monitor strap is dying. Either that or I have no heart rate. Some do say I am heartless, so that is a possibility.

why tri-ing new things is good

Isn't that post title clever? Ok, not so much.

Biked in today and swam. It hurt less than it did last time, and I'm beginning to see what I need to do to get better. I think there is a kickboard in my future.

short but sweet

Ok, I am biased, but...

I thought I was too cynical to be inspired by a politician. I was wrong.

I know Obama can't do all that he promises, but I'm more than willing to give him a chance.

Really?

Could someone remind the McCain campaign that he is running for president of the United States? I mean, come on, I thought the Brittany ad was stupid and beneath a serious presidential campaign, but this reads like something the Onion would do.

My question is this: do the pundits parroting this crap* (or instigating it) believe the words coming from their mouths, or do they have a contest every day to see if they can get the topic seriously discussed on other shows and believed by their viewers / readers? This is almost as bad as the "terrorist fist bump" in levels of idiocy.

I guess McCain is going to accept the nomination in a room decorated with no more than 2 balloons and an American flag.

*link to article about stupid pundits, not the pundits themselves.

This Election is simple...

... or not.

At its base, the framing of the DNC is correct: if you are happy with the policies of the Bush Administration, by all means vote for McCain. If you are not, vote for Obama. To Democrats, this seems like a clear winning strategy as most Americans seem to believe we are on the wrong track. This should be an easier task than Bush faced in 2000 when he had to convince people to vote for a change in the party in charge even though most Americans were pleased with the job Bill Clinton did.

The problem that arises is that many voters cannot actually identify the policies of the presidential candidates, are not willing to take the time to learn the policies, and, given that they probably do not follow the intricacies of current policy, are unable to compare the presidencies. And if Drew Westen is correct, most people vote based on emotion, not their analysis of the likely effects of policy decisions on their lives.

This emotional voting is behind the efforts of both campaigns to point to personal foibles or emotionally charged issues (Obama as elitist, McCain doesn't even know how many homes he owns). It also suggest that if Democrats really want to win, they need to emphasize the question Reagan made famous, "Are you better off than you were [8] years ago?" Everything else is a red herring.

Experience? Neither candidate has true executive experience. McCain is older, but then Cheney is older and more "experienced" than Bush. How did that work out? Not to mention that no experience is comparable to that of president of a major power, let alone the world's most powerful country. If we want evidence as to how either of these candidates will run a major organization, look to the campaigns. Which has run the better organized, more effective campaign?

Wisdom & judgement? With which candidate do you tend to agree most often? If you think the Iraq war was a mistake, support alternative energy research, and aren't a fan of torture & warrantless wiretapping, Obama's probably your guy. If you like Bush's policies, voting records suggest you should go McCain.

Race? Doesn't matter.

Obviously, this is a simplistic view, and really just represents some ruminations from this mornings exercise mentioned in the previous post. There's more, but I have to get ready for class.