How refreshing to find someone who actually admits it.

Well, I also have to blame the public for paying them any attention as well.

We could all just quit reading, watching, listening to the crap.

Oh, I actually like Grant too, but it doesn't change the fact that he was an unbelievably awkward President - while he was an unreal general (especially the amazing Vicksburg gambit), he basically abandoned all of the qualities that made him a great general when he took office, hence the "functional retard" portion . . . how a guy that smart, creative and willing to take risks becomes a risk-adverse, corruption-loving, Panic of 1873-ignoring douche is beyond me.

Again, YMMV and all that.

I'm not sure that the office of President was ever the province of people with "sane egos" at any point in history, to be quite honest, but I can certainly understand where you're coming from with the rest - and that was kind of my point. Just because we're bombarded with this stuff on TV, over the air and on the Internet doesn't mean that it's any 'worse' than stuff that happened in 1950, 1850, or 1750 - there's quite a bit of evidence that this is actually the norm, not a recent development, but we're simply more saturated with information than before.

This is kind of like the inane outrage at "those darn kids" by older generations - it happens every year, and has since the beginning of time. I guess in my mind, this is kind of similar to only showing the top half of Elvis's body on TV - we can shake our heads all we want, but that doesn't mean we're "right" or righteous.

I wish I could have done that for the past 8 or so years.....

I'm not sure how much knowing any of the information we learn really changes anyone's behavior anyway.

Did you really do anything different based on what you learned through political coverage in the last eight years? (Did you love Bush at one point and change your mind?)

I don't think most people do. They vote for the candidates that they'd be most likely to vote for anyway with only a superficial overview of positions, I think. (I'm all out of love for Bush, but I wouldn't vote for John Kerry or Gore if I had it all to do over again.) And I think a very small percentage of the non-professional lobbyist population ever seek to influence the positions of elected officials once they are elected.

Have you written your congressperson lately? Started a re-call effort? Gotten involved in internal party politics based on Michigan or Florida? I haven't.

UGA...to be honest...I started paying attention to the political process

I started watching who stayed in cabinent, who resigned....

I never had any love for Bush, but the presidency had me pay attention more to how my money was spent, schooling, jobs etc...

There is so much more now that I am watching because I think the US is in trouble and if the 'right' person (out of this weak field) ins't elected...we are gonna find ourselves in a bad spot.

I'm not really sure that who we elect as President among the field we've got will really make that big a difference. I'm not expecting salvation or damnation out of it.

I think the country is facing a decline in some areas, but I think the problems are cultural rather than political. I don't mean anything religious, just that our perceptions of ourselves, our values and what we expect from life are fundamentally changing the freedom and prosperity we can expect. In some areas things might be better, but generally, I think it's going to be a, fortunately slow, decline in what I like about America and our vision of ourselves. I still think we're the best thing going, but we're talking about shifting a lot of burdens to the federal government to handle and they are going to be expensive and bureaucratic without providing much relief.

So, did what you learned from paying more attention really make any difference in terms of anything you are likely to do? Do you have a sense that had you not learned X, you'd vote for person A, but because you learned X, you have to go for person B?

I think very few of us look for anything other than confirmation of what we already think when we do pay attention, but I hope that you surprise me.

DaemonSeid, good for you, for learning more about the process! Keep it up, and you'll be every politician's nightmare! ;)

UGAalum94, you make some very interesting points, especially in your last paragraph. We have problems as a country, but on what level should they be solved? Federal? State? Or in the home? Earlier today, I heard a statistic, and unfortunately didn't get the exact number - but of those ardently supporting Clinton, a shocking amount of them said that they'd vote for McCain before Obama. It shook me up, because I really thought that we, as a country, had made great strides in the racial divide. Also, while those born and raised here say we have problems as a country, we have to remember how many people risk their lives to get here. Obviously, we are doing something right!

Also, thank you to the people who quoted someone I have on ignore. I'd like to say that I don't put many people - if any - on a pedestal. When I used the word statesmen, I should have clarified myself. IMHO, there are a great many men who never became president, but might have made good ones (or at least, better than those elected). They walked their talk, and tried their level best to make others progress in their thought process. Presidents and presidential candidates all do the same thing as the rest of us when they get up in the morning, and until voters can look at them through realistic eyes, there will always be problems with elected officials.

I'm not convinced that statistic had anything to do with race because the way I heard it was that 21% of those supporting Clinton said they would vote for McCain over Obama and that 27% of those supporting Obama would vote for McCain over Clinton. The point of the news blip that I was hearing was that Clinton hoped these statistics would show she was more electable but in fact, they showed that Obama is more electable.

ETA: It was on the Today show that I heard it.

I don't know how much that statistic has to do with race. On the flipside, I will vote for McCain before I vote for Clinton. Does this mean that we haven't made great strides in the gender gap? Of course we have. I just don't want that woman as my President! A lot of people are skeptical about Obama because of his lack of experience relative to the other candidates.

There are some serious questions about the validity of these statistics, as well - I'm not really sure of the utility, since in the heat of a Presidential race, many presumably have spent at least some amount of time discerning between two candidates and focusing on the "negatives" whereas this same process hasn't yet happened with McCain. Besides this, we know party affiliation is a strong force for voters, and I'm not convinced these aren't "heat of the moment" statements that don't carry over to the actual polls.

However, I do enjoy the fact that the numbers are so similar (or favor Obama) - just the kind of irony that my Schadenfreude-addled brain loves so dearly.

(I don't particularly care if you have me on ignore - this is a discussion, not elementary school, so I'll continue it. I'd encourage you to stop exfoliating and get thicker.)

I have no doubt that many men (and women) could have made great Presidents but never had the chance - in fact, it's so self-evident in my mind that it borders on tautology, to be honest. To that extent, I agree pretty much wholeheartedly with what you're saying here - which is why your previous characterization of these particular Presidential candidates seems so disingenuous or awkward. This group really can't be worse than any other we've had, can it?

We've had Presidents who did a pretty good job who had serious moral, ethical and even legal failings - my point isn't to be judgmental of these failings, but rather that your somewhat draconian labeling of this group as "nutjobs" doesn't jive with the view you've given above.

In short: what makes this group so much worse?

Second point (to further discussion): is there something inherent or latent in politics or people who become politicians that leads to the sort of problematic behavior that we associate with them? Is it a power issue?

I'm not talking about cheating on your wife here, by the way - about a third of all men and women do it, so I'd expect a third of politicians as well.

To clarify a little further - I lie sometimes, because I'm imperfect - sometimes it's because it is expedient, sometimes because it gets me something or somewhere I want, whatever. I'd expect politicians to do the same - would it be fair for me to hold them to a higher standard? If a politician cheats on his wife, and my neighbor cheats on his wife, I'd still play softball with my neighbor - would I still vote for the politician?

To what extent do these things even matter? Where is the dividing line? Can a person still fulfill their civic duties with a history of moral failings (not necessarily ethical)?

About the statistics to which I alluded: The ones I heard were from Southwestern PA only, where I currently live, and were higher than in the 20's. The pollsters offered some interviews, which included people expressing the reasons they wouldn't vote for Obama. They sickened me.

If overall, the percentage is in the 20's, and honestly has nothing to do with race, I'm much happier. Not happier that I seem to be living in a racist state, but happier that, as a country, we have progressed past the stereotypes.

Because it's become too much like the "there was a priest, a rabbi, and a minister in a lifeboat" type joke, and the whole concept of POTUS should not be a joke. Not so much McCain, but both the Obama and Clinton teams have, at times, made this an election of voting for a (black, woman) or you're (racist, sexist). These are stereotypes that we simply should refuse to pander to. The jokes about McCain being older are just getting started, in comparison. I will admit that "nutjobs" was too strong a word, but this has been one ugly election, and we're not even to the Conventions yet.

Of course. Power is the only reason most people run for an election, and is the ultimate aphrodisiac. You're a smart guy - I've never thought otherwise, I just don't care for your condescending attitude - so you know that power is what it's all about. Why else spend so many millions upon millions of dollars for a $400,000/year job?

Nobody alive is perfect, and there will always be failings. Some people feel that certain faults are worse than others. The reasons I may not care for a candidate may mean nothing to someone else, and vice versa. Some of these moral faults may have absolutely no bearing on the ability to be a president with strong ethics. There are people who have gone through a personal struggle that would turn stomachs, but have come out of it with a very strong moral/ethical stronghold.

And that's the key word for me - strong. The tearing apart of each candidate will dog November's winner throughout his/her term, and in doing so, will weaken the Presidency. Is losing our status as the strongest nation really worth it? I really don't think so.

At the risk of being mocked, I really do think we'd be so much better off with a six year Presidential term, with no chance of reelection. Why should a President have to spend most of his first term learning the ropes then preparing for his/her next election? I think we need a better form of spending caps. They're estimating as much as $90 million dollars to be spent on Pennsylvania alone this month - why not require matching dollars to be spent on the National Debt? Should we really have primary elections spread over five to six months?

I've shortened this quite a bit, mostly the anecdotes, but I think the main points have been made.

Hillary was telling the truth...

Video that uncovers the snipers firing at Hillary


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVED...&feature=bz303

That was kind of funny.

What do you think she thought was going to happen when she told that story? Do you think that she misunderstood the danger she was in at the time are really believed what she said or just that she just expected the press to give her a free pass about what she claimed as her experience?

I'm just baffled that someone as smart as she is would have said it, you know?

Damn, Osama?