> > Obama has been winning largely by virtue of a massive campaign chest. > My > guess is that his people don't know how to wage an effective campaign > without throwing huge sums of money at it. > > I've been told by many that I should have faith in Obama's skills > because he > was so effective in running his campaign against Hillary. However, if > you > took away his huge funding advantage I don't know what the outcome > would > have been. I believe it is likely he would have lost, as so many were > predicting for so long. It is really easy to look like you're managing > your > funds well when you have a lot of money. The real trick is to manage > your > funds when you don't have so much.
In this respect precisely both parties and the federal government actually *do* represent the average American family. Debt is hard-wired into our way of thinking over the last generation or two, and it's hard for most folks to imagine even buying a car without a loan. I mean, why pay cash when you can finance? You can have more stuff today and as long as you got that paycheck coming in, and no illnesses rock the boat, why, life is good. (Hence the effectiveness of "jobs" despite a 95% employment rate, and "healthcare" as political issues... we are so leveraged as a society that just the thought of either losing a job or health coverage makes us beg and moan for government programs that "secure" our entitlements...) The ungodly gobs of money going into politics is not the work merely of evil "lobbyists" -- nor is our national debt the result of a single party's lack of fiscal discipline. The loss of our jobs overseas is a bipartisan effort that goes back more than 40 years. It's a reflection of our cultural attitude toward life, which has become increasingly man-centered, narcissistic, pleasure-oriented, and geared toward instant-gratification. We throw money at everything and if we can't afford it we use leverage. Like the sun rising everyday in the East. We're happy with cheap stuff, and don't care if buying it puts Chinese nuclear submarines in the Pacific to prowl our coasts. Obama and his new chic liberalism isn't going to change that--to the contrary, it's based on the very same impulse. Obviously, McCain has not changed that (one can only be a maverick so far when one also harbors presidential ambitions). When it all comes crashing down--which I suspect will be quite soon--it will be "look in the mirror" time for everyone. It's too bad it has to come to that. But then we will have real "change." It won't be of the cardboard cutout variety that still woos coeds, brings in hundreds of millions of campaign cash, and wins elections, though. - Bob > Kristyne > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
