The Cosmopolitan Blog

Some perspective on the current race to the White House: this is a game. it’s called politics. There are winners, and there are losers. But no, the winner will not be the candidate who becomes POTUS and the looser the one who doesn’t. That’s where we’ve all got it wrong if we think that’s what happens. The winners and the losers have already been decided.

Obama and McCain and play a game. We suffer the consequences.

Are the candidates evil because they play this game? No, they have to play the game. Politics and government leadership, in any country, works this way. Let’s not over simplify this matter by thinking that all you need to do is have honor and be a good guy, and people will realize that and vote for you. It’s simple maths and economics:

If you don’t have money, you can’t fund a campaign. If you can’t fund a campaign, you won’t get noticed. if you don’t get noticed, no one votes for you. If no one votes for you, you don’t become president. So how do you get money? You go around and promise stuff to people.

They then give you their money. But you need to promise so many people so much stuff that some stuff conflicts with the other stuff you promised. And sometimes you promise stuff with more emphasis to bigger companies because they give you more money, so that you can continue appearing places in order to promise more stuff to more people. Are you GETTING how this works now???

My point? My point is this: everytime we make the argument that one candidate is better than the other, than one candidate is being more truthful than the other, that one candidate wants to fight for the average-Joe more than the other, it’s bull. They all play the same game, and use different tactics to convince you that they don’t. McCain, Obama, same game. So why do I support Obama over McCain? Because Obama sold his lies to me more convincingly than McCain.

That’s why you and I, if we decided to start campaigning and did all we could to remain squeacky clean, if we promised to run a campaign where we would only ever promise something if we had PROOF that we could deliver, well then, you and I could NEVER get anywhere.

I just re-read this post. The fact that i’ve never come closer to sounding like Lou Dobbs scares the living crap out of me.

Part 2 of my effort at fairness, looking at the serious criticism of Obama’s campaign (and of Obama himself).

Issue 2: The ACORN Issue

Arguably, this is a more serious issue than the Ayers issue, I think that was acknowledged by all parties.

1. CLAIM: ACORN has created fake voter registrations by using fake names: for example names of people who are actually deceased, even the name Jimmy Johns, the name of a restaurant where no actual Jimmy Johns worked at, they even created fake registrations for the entire Dallas Cowboys football team. Since Obama is linked to this firm in some way, and since 1+1=3, Obama is rigging the election.
2. FACTS:
   • ACORN has been under investigation for over four years
   • ACORN has created over 5,000 fake voter registrations in at least 6 states and continued to do so until a few days ago when it became a national issue
   • Obama’s campaign used ACORN’s services (it was actually a subsidiary, but fine, let’s simplify) during the primary campaign to register voters at a fee of $800,000.
   • ACORN endorsed Obama for president
3. CONCLUSIONS:
   • Obama used the services of a firm under investigation: YES
   • Should he have? NO
   • Would it have affected the outcome of the primaries NO the number of registrations was a few thousand, Obama won by much more
   • Does it make a difference that ACORN endorsed him? NOT REMOTELY, do you know how many companies endorse each candidate, 1/2 the time without the candidates even knowing it?
   • Will this affect this election? NO, since a. they’ve been caught, b. all registrations (fake or non) coming from them have been pulled, c. this was not actual votes, it was registrations for new voters to be able to vote

COSMOCHICK’S RANT:

While I think this is a more serious issue than Ayers, because Obama’s campaign is to blame for having hired a firm under investigation, the consequences of his actions are, well, non-consequential. Again, this is a political tactic. McCain is trying to put doubts in voters minds by lining up a bunch of things that will make you question his judgment. What McCain doesn’t tell you is that he’s done just as bad, that it’s all part of the game of politics, and that even HE (McCain) doesn’t think this are big deal issues, he’s just grabbing at straws.

However, if you feel that your trust in Obama has gone because a guy who bombed the Pentagon organized a meeting to launch Obama’s campaign, and because he used the services of a firm under investigation, then you have the right to feel that way. That means McCain’s argument was persuasive. And i can’t fault you for this.

What I will say though, is don’t imagine ANYTHING here is black or white (and I’m not talking about the candidates’ skin colors). If you think there’s doubt to be cast on Obama’s campaign practices, then you should know there are is just as much to be cast on McCain? Why? Am i saying this because I’m bitter? No. I’m as calm as i can be when i tell you: it’s the name of the game, politics. You do what you can do to get ahead. You say what you can say.You promise what you need to promise. And if you think McCain is any better, because he seems nice, because he seems approachable, because he could be your next door neighbor, because you can relate to him, because he doesn’t flash a Harvard education around… then think again. He might very well be all of these things, but he’s not become a presidential nominee by being a nice guy, trust me.

And you know what? In 2000 and 2004, we elected and re-elected a guy that seemed nice and approachable. Look where that got us. *sigh* I feel a new post topic coming on whether a POTUS should be just like us… Stay tuned.

There was a time when the world’s favorite cliché of Americans was those funny Jay Leno-style interviews where he’d walk around the streets interviewing average americans, and 1/2 of them wouldn’t know the answers to basic questions such as “Where is Canada”, “Give me the name of a country beginning with ‘u’”… Then, well, the myth was broken when others starting posting YouTube videos showing that there were stupid people everywhere, not just in the US.

But now, the new cliché is a scarier side of the supposed ignorance in Middle America. It’s that somewhere, in the middle of the country, those who stay away from mainstream TV, those white, middle aged men and women listen and believe every rumor and negative rhetoric that comes their way. I’m talking about the negative rumors on Barak Obama. Those who won’t vote for him because he’s black. Those who believe that because his middle name is Hussein, it automatically means that he’s Muslim, and therefore that he’s in bed with terrorists (cuz we know that every Muslim is by default, a terrorist).

The problem is this: they hear soundbites of negative rhetoric, and then, in their heads, they magnify it. They can’t see, for example, that Barak’s association with Fannie May is no more disproportionate than McCain’s. The are not people who base themselves on facts. Really, they don’t. I’m not saying that if they did, McCain would suddenly appear evil. No, no, i’m sure they would still support McCain, and they should, if that’s what they believe in. But read, research, find out the truth. Don’t believe a website, just because it claims to know more about Barak Obama than even the government.

I’ll stop. A picture is worth a thousand words. A video is worth, well, a lot more. So judge for yourself. This is how we see you, America.

So, let’s assume, for a second, that Barak Obama becomes the democratic nominee for the US presidency. It’s pretty clear that’s he’s nearly there, so it’s a safe assumption. But now, the question is, who will be his running mate? The thing is, I believe this is a question he should address soon, because if he plays his cards right, his running mate could have a really great following that he would then benefit from.

So. His choices. Well, Hillary would be one. That would be the perfect ticket, right? The thing is, i strongly believe that their policies are actually very different (some even say Hillary is closer on her policy to McCain is certain ways), so i don’t see how they could see such a partnership, it would confuse the message, i mean, they would then have to decide, well, which policy on healthcare, which policy on environment do we pick?

Option 2: John Edwards. He just endorsed Obama, so it would be a safe assumption. He would bring the white male vote (and young female vote) to the ticket, that could be useful. Problem is, i think he’s pretty much said, he wouldn’t want to be on a ticket as VP again, he’s been there, done that. (Having said that, he also said he wasn’t ready to endorse anyone, 24 hours before he endorsed Obama).

So, yesterday, around our weekly family dinner table, this idea came up, and i think it’s a very viable one. What about Nancy Pelosi for vice-president? It’s like combining the above 2 options. She has policies that are close to those of Obama and John Edwards, AND she’s a white woman, so she could potentially appease all those Hillary supporters who will feel snubbed, and who are, apparently, considering voting for McCain if Hillary’s not an option. I think Nancy Pelosi, as the speaker of the house (3rd highest position after President and VP) brings experience, contacts, and more than that, her personality is a lot better fit, i believe. Hillary, i’ve always found, has a self-centeredness and selfishness about her, she is power hungry and can be ruthless. Nancy does give that impression, and if i can allow myself to be an idealist for a second, she makes me believe that she would have the health of the country in mind with everything she does.