People incorrectly believe that this country is divided into democrats and republicans. It is not. These as simply the "football teams", that groups, families and neighborhoods like to get together and support.

Obama's nomination as the presidential candidate will, in my view, put the divisions of this county in sharp relief...the Obama vs. the Non-Obama people. (Sorry but McCain's just an innocent bystander in this next contest)

The non-Obama's are folks put a premium on past experience and traditions. Anything shiny, new and different is just "bullcrap". Non-Obama folks have "seen it all before" and when introduced to new ideas, they'll look for the flaws and try to cut it down to size.

The Obama folks on the other hand put a premium on vision and possibilities. These "fools" are willing to place their bets on something they feel is the right thing.

Most countries that are backward economically and socially (read middle east countries not dripping in oil) have a dominant non-Obama attitude. In fact, human nature is non-Obama

The United States is on of the few countries is that not only accepts Obamas but lets them thrive. Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street, and other great global successes, which the non-Obamas love to hate, were largely built by people with "too much vision and too little experience to know that their vision just wouldn't work.”

So when people say they've been a Democrat their entire life and will be voting McCain this time...they're just fooling themselves. They are voting as Non-Obamas, not Democrats. They are voting for their reality that the world is a terrible scary place and they need a mean, experienced SOB in the White House to protect them. To them someone with three years Senate experience and 8 years state senate experience is just not up to the job.

Conversely there are a lot of Republicans who seem to be drawn to Obama. These folks know that (like most mutual funds) past experience is not indicative of future performance. They place their bets on vision and positive energy. That why some Republicans have started to describe Obama as the Democratic Regan. Regan's appeal wasn't his technical ideas (most Americans at the time were not as conservative as him) but his sunny optimism, and ability to relate to others. Remember the enthusiasm for Regan at the time was as "cultish" as presently for Obama...if not more.

So the next election is really an epic struggle between the Obamas and the Non-Obamas (& mild racists..the latter being people who wish they they could vote for Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice or Lionel Richie. Any other black person is just too scary and out of the mainstream.)

Back in the 80's I was a strong and proud Regan supporter. Now I have to admit that I've got the same feeling for Obama. After all, they both actually belong to the same party...embracing the future rather than fearing it.

Well said! And, might I add, beautifully written.

I think that you're really putting a spotlight on a key issue here.

Risk vs. Security

Risk almost always has a bigger payout, if it succeeds, which is not a certainty.

(Stocks)

Security has predictable low returns, but almost always delivers them.

(Bonds)

And there are definitely two types of investors.

And predictably, they're divided by age too.

Your statement is quite intriguing because you explain precisely the issue with the democratic party metamorphises. I don't now whether to embrace the Republican converts or be afraid that the "non-Bush" republicans that have switched to the side that is winning, are now part of the Dem party. It is eerily surreal somewaht disturbing. The only fear is that these new converts will jump back to the darkside when the going gets tough.

Well done!

I think there are two basic groups - those who are afraid and stop and then there are those who are afraid and go on anyway. Fear is an emotion that is hardwired into our DNA for our own protection. But for too long now it has been used as a tool of control.

And it is important for the people who feel the excitement of vision and recovery to make it visible to those who are filled with fear.

We, in America, must not be afraid to speak. To disagree. We must guard with special care the freedoms our government is based on. Sure, the gun thing (not my favorite) but also free speech, religion, assembly, due process of law, the right to vote!

Every person who feels that vision is a good thing, that hope is a real thing, that change is a positive thing can do more for this country by reacing out to someone who is still afraid - rather than mocking or attacking them. (And, no, I'm not being naive - I don't think the campaigns can run like that!)

Challenging oneself to take responsibility for one's own feelings, beliefs and words is a far greater thing than being told what to say, feel or think.

It is what the future is all about. It's a challenge. It takes courage.

supporters are COWARDS rather than concerned and EXPERIENCED citizens attempting to select the best president to handle a fucking looming economic depression and our neo-Vietnam venture.

Yeah . . . HR Clinton supporters are just cowards.

That's cool . . . Obama supporters are brainless dreamers that are trusting to 'feel good' politics to fix real problems while HR. CLinton supporters are cowards terrified of their own shadows.

But WAIT! You forgot to include that HR Clinton supporters are also either bitter old women supporting Hillary because they are worthless feminists or racist knuckle-draggers. Don't forget that only uneducated, racist knuckle draggers vote for Hillary. You need to get in ALL the shots in order to properly campaign for YOUR Obama.

Talk to you later, you clueless dreamers.

Gatewood, thank you so much for jumping into the fray here and so beautifully displaying the accuracy of the original post. Your response was a classic example of the differences between the two groups, as pointed out in the original post.

Gatewood:

supporters are COWARDS rather than concerned and EXPERIENCED citizens attempting to select the best president to handle a fucking looming economic depression and our neo-Vietnam venture.

Yeah . . . HR Clinton supporters are just cowards.

That's cool . . . Obama supporters are brainless dreamers that are trusting to 'feel good' politics to fix real problems while HR. CLinton supporters are cowards terrified of their own shadows.

But WAIT! You forgot to include that HR Clinton supporters are also either bitter old women supporting Hillary because they are worthless feminists or racist knuckle-draggers. Don't forget that only uneducated, racist knuckle draggers vote for Hillary. You need to get in ALL the shots in order to properly campaign for YOUR Obama.

Talk to you later, you clueless dreamers.

I'd like to take this moment to point out that change IS really frightening to many people. They are too frightened to move out of their personal comfort zone and they do not want to be "shown up" or made to "look bad" by others who exhibit less fear than they do.

So they lash out blindly at what they see as causing that fear.

You can usually easily identify this sort of fear because in the very act of lashing out the fearful person will usually manage to point up the most extreme differences between themselves and their self image and the self image of those that they attack.

It's as if a bear were to stand up next to your picnic table.

Instant fear.

Obvious sane reaction, run away. The bear will kick your ass.

But what if you become paralyzed with fear?

The standoff continues, you become more afraid both to be where you are, and to move for fear of being attacked because you moved.

Fear reaction: Attack the bear. Which merely points out that you are indeed weaker than the bear and ARE going to get your ass kicked.

Now report that the bear mauled you..

I have to admit that the post by Bullspotter was one of the silliest things I have ever read in my entire life. To believe that an inexperienced politician with no real track record to speak of and nothing but empty slogans about "change" and "hope" is somehow the guy that's going to "magically" turn things around is naive, to say the least. His stance on Iraq (i.e. pulling out within 6 months or whatever) is naive. How about letting the generals on the ground have significant input? At the very least consider splitting the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis into 3 seperate entities before leaving? Although Turkey may object at least we wouldn't leave everyone at each other's throats prior to leaving...Likewise, if anyone's been to a hospital emergency room recently then they would know that mandated coverage (ala Hillary Clinton's proposal) is definitely an improvement upon his idea. Unfortunately, certain Democrats are sooooo infatuated with Obama that they cannot see the forest for the trees. But they will in November when--yet another--Republican wins the White House and stops all necessary reforms...

Thanks guys! :-(

So, we're going to vote democrat in November...but you're not.

And somehow your not voting democratic which is how you're saying McCain will win, will be the Obama supporters fault??

We're not the democrats voting for McCain, not our fault.

I voted for Jimmy Carter back in 1976. Although he ran a good populist campaign based on empty rhetoric it turned out to be a bad choice for the country due mostly to his inexperence. The Kennedy faction of the Democratic Party then savaged him (because they didn't want to share power with anyone else) and we got Reagan--and a national debt as far as the eye could see--instead. Between the 3 contestants I would prefer Hillary. Unfortunately we will probably get yet another inexperienced politician who sounds good (Obama) and is supported by the same Kennedy faction that destroyed the Democratic Party in the mid-60's and '76. Given a choice between McCain or Obama I will probably vote for a 3rd Party Candidate as both McCain and Obama will do some serious damage to this country. And I don't want that to happen. In short, I disagree with almost everything McCain stands for (minus his service to his country) and Obama is simply an "empty suit" who's too naive to lead this great country of ours. Either way we lose...

Interesting thoughts. Perhaps we should just throw out the old labels of Democrat & Republican and form new parties called "Glass Half Fulls" and "Glass Half Empties."

Sorry, meant that post to be directed to innocent bystander.

Uriah43, thanks for helping take my point further one step further. You’re confident that Obama’s positions are just empty slogans and then you cite the “experienced position” on Iraq.

We’re actually stuck in Iraq because;

1) Each of the local groups have despised each other for centuries. Saddam just put a lid on things and we opened that lid when we went in to look for “weapons of mass destruction”.

2) Papa America is now being manipulated and played a giant fool by each of these factions. (except for Al Queda, whom everyone seems to hate right now)

You suggest that the “prudent and experienced” thing to do is to try and control the situation by splitting the country, or negotiating or surging or whatever. Well Mr. experience, the US has control over only one thing. It’s not the Iraq gov’t, or the leadership of different factions, or the ability to magically cleave county into three or, the local temperature in Bagdad. It only has control over whether it stays or leaves.

Your “experienced candidates” are too caught up in worrying about all potential chaos or loss of credibility that may arise if the Army moved out. In the process Mr. and Ms. Experience has effectively emasculated the US by taking away the only thing they have control over…setting a timeline for departure.

Mr. and Ms. “experience” would also like to consult with the commanders on the ground, so we can find even find even more justification for staying. The job of local military leadership is to control and manage the risk on the ground. Their area of responsibility begins and ends with keeping Iraq in control given the current situation. Of course they’ll tell us that we absolutely need to stay.

What your “experienced” candidates are really trying to do is try and control the uncontrollable. That is, they are trying to bargain, threaten, flatter, etc the various factions to reach a stable situation. Not only does this provide comic relief for the locals, and other countries in the region, but it is also draining the military effectiveness, costing lives and treasure for the next 50 plus years.

Trying to control the uncontrollable is what one does when they are afraid. Being afraid of the big bad world is what old Washington experience teaches us.

The Iraq gov't and other centers of influence are not going to move an inch unless they know that the main controlling authority, the US military has a deadline to move out. Declaring a fast deadline, as Obama has done, is a good place to get this moving. But unfortunately that’s just “naïve”.

I'm with you BS. Here's what I don't understand -- what do those "experienced types" mean when they say if we withdraw it will be chaos?

I mean, isn't it chaos now? Only we're ALSO losing lives and money?

If the region is going to be chaos why do WE have to be in it?

I'm thinking - oil.

Well, that leads us back to the very nasty idea that it's not our democracy and freedom we're fighting for - but oil. Yuck.

Did you see the documentary "No End In Sight"?

I found it oddly comforting. The troops on the ground are good people, doing a hell of a job with what their tasks and targets are. The military leaders are also adept and talented. The civilian layer above that is hamstrung, and the political layer above that is filled with garbage. And then it goes into the White House.

Yeah - it's time for a change.

Bullspotter-

In response to your post:

1) I agree. We should NOT have invaded Iraq. 2) I agree. Thanks to the arrogance of Rumsfeld, Cheney & Bush we decided we didn't need friends (like France, Germany, etc.) and we went it alone. Bad decision. 3) It is true that only the U.S. can control when it leaves. However, before we leave I believe that we need to ensure that the current unstable situation doesn't get totally out-of-control. And NO--the situation in Iraq at this moment is NOT out-of-control. Some like to think it is but it could get much, much worse. Now, contrary to what some may think, not all Iraqis are bad. They're not all terrorists or Islamic extremists. It may even surprise some to find that they bleed just like regular human beings. I don't believe it is the responsible thing to do (for the United States) to simply pull out and leave EVERYONE to fend for themselves. Nature abhors a vacuum and that's exactly what Iran and Al Qaeda want. When we leave we need to ensure some kind of mechanism exists to prevent total chaos. And no--Iraq is NOT in that state right now. But it WILL BE if we leave the innocent millions behind. Now, I gave just ONE ALTERNATIVE when I mentioned splitting the warring factions into seperate states. It was just an idea that I threw out there for thought. Chop it up if you like. It doesn't matter to me. [If getting the U.N. or NATO to take our place is the way to go then I'm all for that too.] However, regardless of whether you agree with one idea or another one thing is for sure--we need to listen to what our generals on the ground are saying. Having served in the military for 20 years I can assure that they don't want to be in an unwinnable situation any more than you do. Unfortunately, Bush and Rumsfeld has fired all of those who dared to disagree with them. I would hope the next President of the United States would learn from this. But I doubt either Obama or McCain will. It sure doesn't sound like it from the way they talk...