total annihilation of normalcy

Regarding the comment left on my post, “It’s not right to put words into another’s campaign…”

I appreciate Dan's comments, and I can see, again, McCain's strengths, as listed, in theory, would carry much merit.

Again, what I take issue with in this sentiment (that of the author of the article from townhall.com), and what I think is missed in this discussion, is that the "change" Obama represents is, again, not change from some deviant "soul" of the American citizenry, etcetera, but change from politics as usual, especially in the case of deep ties to global corporate wants, as in the case of the Halliburton example. Which is to leave out "big oil" in general, which, is, probably a mistake on my part.

I'm not singling out Halliburton. Just one example in a long list.

I'm in fact, not saying that the corporation Halliburton is an evil entity, or does not have its place in business (others make this case but I think that the pros and cons of this corporation are irrelevant to the theme of my argument here), but that having government leadership that is so implicitly connected to, and therefore apt to influence by, such huge corporate pressures and desires, is not good for the American soul, or the American people (the "little" people, if you will).

Taken a step farther, I feel like we need change from the son of a CIA director and former president. The political leadership in America has become too closely netted with the military, the corporate agenda, the good-ole-boys…the status quo, the upper echelon…we need to have a democratically run anti-corporate funded political leadership or else we will rot from the head down.

Let’s say, for example, Obama doesn’t have enough…the word experience is used a lot, to imply connections, right? Ok, so Obama isn’t connected enough, let’s pretend. Let’s put aside all of his accomplishments and his background in Law and government, and pretend he’s not connected enough to have “experience.” So what happens.

Well, let’s assume something goes way wrong…let’s assume a hurricane takes out Washington D.C. Ok, bad times. Then, we get hit with a huge earthquake on the San Andreas and millions are dead and millions more are homeless, and then, as if that wasn’t bad enough, some guy the CIA trained, wronged, and left to go insane on us, takes a big stab at Chicago or Miami, or Atlanta, and knocks down a few buildings, killing tens of thousands more…ok, so…North, South, East and West, all within a few months of each other, hit with total annihilation of normalcy. So what happens? Obama gets help.

We all chip in and we help him, as our leader, by elect, and we deal and we make things as good as they can be. And guess what, it doesn’t have to be catastrophe, either. This same scenario works for a collapse in the stock market, a small-time terrorist attack, a huge spike in oil and economic mayhem. He gets help. We, the people, and all those congresspeople, mayors, governors, police, emt, 911 operators, factory workers, tow truck drivers, waitstaff, etcetera…

“We All” chip in, we bond together, doing our roles, just like in the case of 9/11, we make it right. We do it. Obama’s experience means little on these terms. I don’t have the experience to make a sandwich, when I’m four years old, but with the right guidance and help, I get it done. The same applies to Obama. I think it might be good for this country to have someone who doesn’t have enough experience. Make us all act a bit more responsibly for our roles, to make this country right, again. Bring on a reason for corporations to step up to the plate for the average American. Bring on a reason for hope and change. Bring it on, baby…let’s force ourselves to show what we are made of, and not that we need to rely on those who are tied-in, connected and “experienced,” to lead us around like the sheep we’ve become.

I think Obama supporters are saying it's time to give someone a chance who is more (I realize not entirely, but more so) disconnected. Time for change, not from a way of life or the greatness of the nation, or from a mythical deviant “soul,” but from good-ole-boy, insider mentality...McCain is simply too close to the same-old-same-old thing that is not working for the underserved in America.

Now, I'm not extremely political by nature. I only know just enough about republicans and democrats to be, typically, repulsed by them both. I also don't identify with libertarians, or independents, as I don't know, honestly, what it means to fit into those boxes.

Further, I don't fit into a religious box, either. I simply cannot be categorized in those terms.
So, therefore, all I know is that I can pick a candidate who, in my opinion, will serve the greatest good of the greatest number of people. In those terms, Obama is it, it seems like.

And again, in my opinion, four years of Obama is worth a try at that goal, and seems more likely to achieve that goal (the greatest good to the most needy), than four years of McCain.
I can't see, really, either way, total collapse in our system or our world, so, with that in mind, I personally feel Obama is, despite being perhaps a longshot, the best horse for the money.

Hope this clears things up, and I desperately appreciate the discourse-there is no way to reach a correct decision without discourse. You can quote me on that. Without discourse, without discussion, it's like searching a cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there (H.S. Thompson on theology).

Smart people making smart arguments will show, eventually, less smart people which one is the smartest argument. This is paramount to the system of democracy. Who was it that said, “without discourse there is no democracy,” well, I’m not sure, but I know he was of enough importance that a google search would probably tell you fairly quickly.

No matter what, just remember to vote your conscious. Not to vote with whoever is the most likely to have the best connections (experience) to the status quo.