Can Hope be a Bad Thing?

This morning I was reading through comcast news when I was shocked to find a quote from John McCain, "This is going to be a very close race, and I believe I'm going to win it". There's nothing wrong with being optimistic, but when McCain is still behind Obama in the polls, shouldn't he be a little pragmatic about the situation? According to the article, "Recent public polls have shown McCain trailing Obama both nationally and in some of the battleground states...". You'd think with McCain clearly behind, he should be a little bit less than comfertable right now. He even blew off critiques of Palin, stating that "she is exactly what Washington needs".

McCain is regarding the election idealistically, at least in the public eye. He announces to the world that he is confident in winning the election, but can too much hope prove to be a bad thing? Is it okay to have his confidence so high when he's not sure he'll succeed? Hope and idealism can be such great things that help one strive for success, but what's the point if you just end up getting put down? When trying to win at anything, such as the role of president, it's great to have hope, but one has to be pragmatic, and prepare for the worst at the same time.

What's the Tipping Point?

According to the New York Times, on Sunday, Barack Obama's presidential campaign announced that it had raised more than 150 million dollars in September, a huge amount unheard of by presidential campaign's in the past. Of course this is great news for Obama and all of his supporters, but it brings up the question, what is the "tipping point" for idealism or pragmatism? A very idealistic voter might think, everyone will just vote for who's views they agree with the most, while the most pragmatic one will be sure the elections are completely corrupt. What's the perfect balance?

When applied to Obama's recent good news, we all probobly wish money didn't matter, but we also have to realize that the campaign's are always going to be at least somewhat money driven. It's always good to think optimistically, but you can't always have your head in the clouds either. You have to stay grounded. People are most likely going to sway slightly more in one direction, but it can be dangerous to be completely on one side. For example, if Obama was 100% idealistic, he wouldn't have attempted to earn any money for his campaign, and therefore wouldn't be anywhere near where he is now. On the other hand, if he was completely pragmatic he wouldn't have his motto "change we can believe in", and he wouldn't be nearly as likeable, consequently losing many possible votes.

The Presidential Debate: Who Will Lead us through our Perilous Times?

Unfortunately I didn't have time to watch the debate last night, but I did read all about it from news articles. Though all aspects of presidency are important, it seems the question everyone wants answered is how our future president will fix (or at least get us through) the current economic crisis. McCain's approach is a 300 billion pledge to buy and renegotiate bad home loans to allow people to keep their houses. He provides America with ethos when he states that "it's my proposal, it's not Senator Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal and I know how to get America working again". Obama, on the other hand, tells us that he is going to "provide middle class tax cuts to 95% of working Americans". Both candidates seem to have a clear set plan to get us out of our perilous times, but the question now becomes who can convince us that they will go through with their plan, and which plan will succeed in its goal. According to CNN's poll of the undecided voters, Obama won the debate 59% to 37. However, I remembered the comment that was made in American Studies today, about how everyone who saw JFK during his presidential debate thought he won, while radio listeners were sure Nixon was the winner. This made me think back to making arguments, and how everything from whats visually presented to the evidence itself can profoundly affect something like a presidential debate. I guess its up to us to decide what arguments a real and what are cleverly covered by pathos and ethos.