Other debate-related rantings

In my brain, Obama is a lot like the Boston Red Sox.

I have a healthy dislike for the Sox. In fact, they may be my most-despised team in Major League Baseball. It's not because anyone on the Sox is a particular douchebag. It's not even because they are a division rival of my team, the perpetually underachieving (and that's putting it lightly) Baltimore Orioles.

It's because of their fans. Boston fans annoy the shit out of me. The worst part is, many of my good friends are Boston fans -- and it's not that I think they are bad people. I just do not like to be around them when they talk about baseball. Something about the sports fans from that city just rubs me the wrong way. The Sox can do no wrong, and when the game is on, look out everyone else who might be a fan of another team. Good friends of mine, who are Sox fans, are completely different people when they watch the game.

I dislike Obama for many reasons, which is not to say I'm overly crazy about McCain -- I'm not. After all, if South Park has taught us anything, it's always about a choice between a some douche and some turd. What I think is solidifying my anti-Obamaism is his fan base. I can't stand these pro-Obama people, who treat him as some kind of messiah here to wipe away every solitary sin in American politics.

Obama can do no wrong to his supporters. To me, that smacks, again, of unintellectual political discourse. No one person can ever completely agree with another on every position -- it's just not possible. Even so, Obamaites walk aroung campus with impunity, claiming that they piss fairy dust and fart rainbows because they are the supporters of the one true messiah, Barack Obama.

It's even worse that so many are college students, ostensibly well-educated. It's one thing for the license-plate-stamper to be all rah-rah about his candidate. He doesn't know any better than what his pastor or favorite Fox News vixen has told him. But these are educated people with supposedly nuanced worldviews walking around, with a cue-card answer for every criticism. I'm sure the Obama folks can claim the same for the other side, but I am particularly annoyed because of my current location and living situation. And because my group of friends is overwhelmingly liberal.

It's not just people around here either. I watch CNBC for the debates because their coverage typically focuses on that which is most important to me -- business, the economy, etc. I like Larry Kudlow (incidentally, "I believe that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity."). But tonight, after yet another lackluster debate, he did not have 100% pleasant words for John McCain. Heck, this is the guy who is all gah-gah over Sarah Palin for Chrissakes. He's a hardcore McCain guy. What did he say though? He said that McCain did a decent job but he was a bit disappointed. He said that McCain should have hammered home x and y point more forcefully (man, I'm really into variables tonight).

That is the mark of intelligent political discourse to me -- when it's okay to say that your preferred candidate has some weak points. Saying that your candidate has all the answers is Bolshevism -- sheer Bolshevism (70% of the reason why I include this remark is because it's a Simpsons quote).

At the conclusion of the debate, as is standard CNBC procedure, they brought on, first, a fairly prominent Obama supporter. In this case, it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida. Her femullet and horridly shrewish manner notwithstanding, she simply raged against McCain and gave Obama a 100% positive report card on every possible topic.

Then they brought on a female legislator from Tennessee (I think it was Marsha Blackburn). She was upbeat about McCain, but acknowledged that he could have done some things differently. That is, she actually added some original thought to the discussion. As I recall, this happened in at least one of the previous debates as well. I do also want to give credit to Keith Boykin. He began his commentary with the statement that overall, they both performed well in the debate and that McCain scored some early points with a couple of issues. Then, he adeptly integrated some harsh words for McCain with some clearly thought-through compliments for Obama. Kudos.

Now I'm sure most of the Obama people out there are thinking "But he did win! It's okay to keep saying that he did win if he actually did." No. No one can win if there is no game. As I said in the previous post, and I stick by this, considering the way that debates are conducted in American politics, you can't win a debate any more than you can win at duck-duck-goose. It just goes around and around in circles, no one learns anything, and maybe a fat kid ends up in the nurse's office.

Bottom line: I am sick and tired of Obama supporters having all the answers. No one has all the answers. So quit trying to shit in my hat and tell me it's a leprechaun.