Well, at the very least one thing I don't buy is they put Obama to the left of me on "socially permissive". I definitely think of myself as left of Obama on that axis. I support immediate legalization of all drugs and the freeing of all non-violent drug offenders, as well as the right for anyone to marry (regardless of gender or how many people are involved in the marriage). Obama is against even legalization of marijuana, and against gay marriage. How could he be more socially permissive than me? There's just something really screwy with that quiz.

I always think the OkC guys have ulterior motives for everything they do, especially with the quizzes. But usually it's designed in a way to get a reactionary thought process going in anyone taking it... obviously they succeeded in this case.

I see what you mean though... I personally think the scale seems okay, but that's only because I believe Obama is even more liberal than he is portrayed. But at the same time, I can see how the scale would seem a lot more balanced if there were at least SOME space more to the liberal side of him... it seems very odd to pin him as the super-liberal. I don't think very many people would see him that way at all. (And if they did, he might be doing a lot worse in the polls!)

But aside from the quiz.. I don't really believe that Obama would be against legalization of drugs (or at the least marijuana) if it weren't a kind of political suicide. I can't imagine that is going to be true for another 20 years though... more and more, when I hear people talk about legalization it's in a "of course it should be legal" way, instead of in a "should it be legal?" way. Give that 10 years to seep around, eventually politicians won't be able to ignore the population that wants it, and someone will run a campaign that pulls the issue into the spotlight (for their benefit or burden).

I wouldn't go so far as all drugs... and I wouldn't say unregulated either. Not because I don't believe in letting people do what they want, but because there is general lack of maturity in Americans about their responsibilities. The average American just seems incapable of dealing with responsibility... and when that responsibility is NOT driving their car through a red light and into my car because they're too stoned to lift their foot off the pedal... I'd like to have some severe punishments (other than their own self-destruction) for these idiots. Anyway, I'm off on a tangent.

Point is, Obama is a real politician... it's hard to tell what, if anything, he absolutely supports. That makes him more likable if you're going to like him, and less hate-able if you're going to hate him... so it's a win-win for politicians. He does this with a kind of flare though... I feel like he obviously has some sort of belief system under there somewhere that will guide his decisions. I would guess it is more complicated and less politically acceptable for him to try and share those beliefs, so he doesn't try - he just keeps it kind of vague, but most people can get a sense of what he believes from his general focus. It's like... the media is a really blurry lens, so instead of trying to zoom in on specific details about himself, which might be confusing and alienate some voters, he just keeps it zoomed out. That doesn't mean he doesn't have detail... it just means you need to get a better lens if you want to see it. (By the same analogy, McCain is like... well, like an old guy with a camera... the focus is all out of whack, it's zoomed in all the way, and it keeps shaking around so you can't tell WTF is going on!)

I don't think he's (Obama) the ideal candidate, but he's the best choice we have (IMO of course), even among the other minor parties. I think our biggest problem lies in our lack of impressive political talents. I mean, I wish there were 3 or more great candidates to choose from... then we could feel good about voting. Least-evil voting sucks.

Later.

If gay "marriage" is legalized, then it would be discrimination for a church to deny a gay couple that want to marry.

Except for a little thing in the constitution about freedom of religion. No church is required to officiate ANY kind of marriage. A Jewish synagogue won't marry a pair of Protestants. A Mormon temple won't marry a pair of Catholics. Heck, they won't even be allowed IN the temple. They can kick out gay people too, nevermind marrying them. But if a gay couple does want to get married, and it's legal, they'll have no problem finding another religious organization or justice of the peace who will do it for them.

He's in the category that supports gay unions, but does NOT support gay marriage... which is to say, legally he supports gay couples getting the same benefits as straight married couples, but he doesn't support the idea of legalizing gay marriage.

In other words, he's a segregationist. He believes in the principle "separate but equal". Marriage is a legal status given only to heterosexuals in most states. Giving homosexual marriages a different legal status and calling it something different like "domestic partnership" or "civil union" is equivalent to supporting "separate but equal" bathroom facilities or schools for whites and blacks. I realize he might be just doing it to appease certain religious special interest groups, but it is nevertheless annoying and backwards-thinking from my perspective.

As far as forcing churches to perform ceremonies for gays in their church... that's a different issue, but an interesting one. Generally, I'm ok with people discriminating in that way... for instance, saying only blacks or jews can go to your church, or only heterosexuals can get married there. Some people are opposed to that... I can kind of see both sides, but we're clearly nowhere near ready as a society for that issue yet. I think we *are* ready to recognize it as a legal status, as is now the law in California recently (although it may soon be undone). As I understand it, the law here in Califoronia is that legally, a gay marriage has the same status as a straight marriage. But churches can still choose whomever they want to (or don't want to) get married at their churches.

A candidate who wants to lower taxes for 95% of working Americans is not a socialist by any stretch.

A real socialist candidate would increase taxes on the rich far more than Obama plans to and reorder government so that social programs spent the money effectively to meet human needs and reordered coercive institutions in this country so that they would become responsive and accountable to democratic controls.

(1) Barack Obama is not a socialist by any meaningful definition of the term. Doing the research into Obama's positions as well as developing a reasonably deep understanding of what socialism is lays this bare.

(2) Even if he were a socialist, it wouldn't be as far removed from your common sense as the Ronald Reagan's of the world would want you to think it is.

Instead of moving around the people, why not keep them where they are and redraw the lines?

So basically, according to you the whole political map is socialist everywhere except the little tiny "anarchist" corner they marked off, which you'd probably call centrist or libertarian?

I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like you're just calling socialist "anything but 100% pure capitalism". Most countries, including ours, have a mixed economy. Ours is more towards pure capitalism than most, but to me calling what we have socialist is just abusing the language. Socialist means someone who is mostly against capitalism... someone who thinks that for the most part, private property should be abolished. That's obviously not the case in the US.

I think the first definition is the one that is the most general and well-phrased. The third is just a description of how Marxists see socialism... as a way to eventually get to communism (where the state will dissolve and there will be no more government). Someone who sees socialism as a transition to communism is a Communist, or a Marxist. Most socialists in the world are not Communists. But they are to the left of American politicians, such as Obama, McCain, Bush, etc. Admittedly, they're not far from Obama, but I still think they are futher to the left.

I'd base this on the kinds of Socialists parties that are around (particularly in Europe) and where they stand on things compared to social democrats (a little bit more to the right) and democrats (even more to the right).

The more I think about this, the more clear it is that it's deliberate distortion. The biggest telltale is the pictures. The square area of McCain is about twice that of Obama's square area. So the chances someone will overlap with McCain is twice as much as that they overlap with Obama when they take the test... causing them to think "oh, I have a lot in common with McCain" if they get anywhere near his giant square. Furthermore, they chose McCain's image to be in crisp vibrant color resolution, and Obama in a dulled, faded, blurry color.

By putting him as close to "zero economic freedom" as they could, they're implying he's an anarcho-syndicalist and 100% opposed to capitalism or ownership of private property. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon should go there instead, and Obama should be in the Democrat region.

My point was that because the square area of McCain is twice as large as Obama, people are twice as likely to "land on McCain", assuming they are equally likely to land anywhere on the chart. The only way this wouldn't be true is if, as you say, everyone tends to land way over in the corner.

Enjoyed talking with you too, Jen. I hope all of your no-on-8 campaigning pays off... fingers crossed :)