When I first saw Obama’s campaign logo I couldn’t help but notice an eerie resemblance to another one:
Which is a fitting analogy, given that the similarities between the two parties in this country are on a par with the differences between Coke and Pepsi (genuine, yet mainly of interest to purists)—as this sly bit of Nader campaigning makes clear:
Scary, isn’t it? And the sad part is that the differences between the Republican and Democratic candidate are as great this time around as they’ve been in a long time. Obama may not be much (and his better qualities are dwindling by the day), but when it comes to Democratic presidential offerings he’s as good as it gets.
The Distant Ocean 
I prefer to compare them to Marlboro vs. Camel. Because people who are addicted to cigarettes claim they can tell the differences between brands, and everybody knows soda is good for you, especially your tooth enamel. Ok, that was flat, er bad.
Actually I was working on a photshoppin’ project of two cigarette packs, McCain and Obama brands, with unusual warning labels, but I put it on the back burner because I wasn’t happy with the first couple of drafts. But I had a great line about how Obama brand is often mistaken for McCain Lights. C’est la vie.
LikeLike
As an ex-smoker, I can assure you there is a very noticeable difference between Marlboro and Camel but when you are dying for a cigarette, it really doesn’t matter which one you have.
LikeLike
Obama brand is often mistaken for McCain Lights…
Good one.
As an ex-smoker, I can assure you there is a very noticeable difference between Marlboro and Camel…
I don’t doubt it, and I think actually it shows that the cigarette analogy is a better one—because to a non-smoker, it’s all just foul, deadly smoke. Just as to a Palestinian it doesn’t matter if it’s a Democrat or a Republican backing the Israelis who’re killing you, or as an Iraqi you can die just as easily from sanctions as you can from concentrated bombing. But for partisans here, gazing through their electron microscopes, the (effectively) tiny differences between the objects of their affection appear enormous.
LikeLike
But for partisans here, gazing through their electron microscopes, the (effectively) tiny differences between the objects of their affection appear enormous.
What percentage of people who will vote for Obama or McCain are partisans, people who have really strong feelings about either of those candidates?
LikeLike
Hard to say, though there’s no shortage of nauseating Obama worship out there. When I was typing “partisan” I was thinking specifically about that root “party”, though, and the people who’ll argue endlessly that the candidate of their party is utterly unlike the other one—a conviction that can’t be swayed by irrelevant facts, and which ultimately doesn’t even have much to do with the candidate. That’s how McCain strikes me this year: he’s like a Republican placeholder, an empty vessel for right-wing talking points. I’d guess that the majority of his support comes from reflexive “conservatives” who’re so conditioned to vote Republican that it hardly involves thinking anymore. Pure partisans.
LikeLike
I’m talking about people who really buy The Party Line along with The Party Hook and The Party Sinker. They might not go around saying, “The Party says this, The Party says that” (the way The U.S. Communist Party Members did in Reagan’s Hollywoodland) but they are
“conservatives”, “liberals”, “centrists” or “people who’re for whatever works” (a lot of people say that — “I’m for whatever works”) who always recite The Party line and vote for The Party Candidate.
I say 25% for The Republicans and 20% for The Democrats. Of course, I’m just pulling those numbers out of thin air but there is no question these two parties are deeply entrenched in The American psyche and it represents a huge obstacle to change.
Anyway, we’re no longer in a sellers market and all this typing “The Party”
LikeLike
…reminded me of a great old movie.
LikeLike