He said he was in Iowa during a rally here in Idaho.

http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/s....81b065ff.html

You get a pass on that stuff if you're young, but it's a "senior moment" and a sign of incompetency if you're old. Funny that Obama's all over McCain when he can't accurately describe his financial situation where Obama often doesn't even know what city he's in.

Given the schedules that both of these guys are keeping and having folks 24/7 them, it's a miracle they know their own names.

If Missouri is in play, then Obama has probably already won the Kerry states, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia and is well on his way to picking out drape patterns for the Oval Office.

I think that Missouri is in the box with Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada. Those are the states that will end up being the difference between an Obama win and an Obama blowout.

That said, his KC/St. Louis gaff just proves what someone above said about how it is amazing how these guys can remember their own names considering the pressure that they are under and the schedules that they keep.

The process is more unfair to McCain because of his age. Obama makes this mistake, people assume that it is a mistake. If McCain were to have done the same thing, there would be these hints of "The man does not even know what city he is in anymore." Very unfair to him, IMO.

edit--as I was typing this, the two posters above made the exact same point that I was making. The lesson seems to be that I am slow and unoriginal.

Ha! I knew Hillary would pull this at the Convention...

YouTube - The Nightly Potato - Breaking News - Unity

Just change your profile to reflect your 'brain age'. :)

Couple new polls out today. A first time polling group in Colorado indicated a 5 point Obama lead. Most polls have Colorado as a dead heat or 1-2 point Obama lead, so probably a bit of error built into that result. Also, Michigan polled out at a 2 point Obama lead.

I live in a fairly moderate city/area of Colorado and I have spoken to about 20 various people between last night and this morning. What is most surprising is alot more moderate republicans (liberatarians) seem to be leaning to Obama now. I guess it might just be bounce but if not ......

Can you give a brief synopsis for those of us that can't do videos at work?

Computer animated video that starts with Brokaw and Matthews in the booth. Brokaw is saying that as many feared Hillary isn't following the script for her speech approved by the Obama campaign...Matthews is wearing his Obama button shaking his head sadly in a "how could she do this?" kind of way.

We go down to the floor where Hillary is saying "Shame on you Barrack Obama, enough with the speeches and the valley and yadda, yadda..."
There are cheers and boos from the factions in the crowd

Obama is sitting nearby looking perplexed and his wife is sitting next to him with a "if looks could kill, you'd be toast beeeatch" look on her face. She's also appears to be holding a remote and is repeatedly pushing a button on it.

As Hill continues the crowd noise gets louder..."Are you listening to me?" she yells... "shut up," she screams.

Back to Michelle. She is still pushing the button on the remote thingy she is holding and suddenly Hillary drops from view behind the podium. The camera dollies in over the top of the podium and we see Hill has fallen into a trap door. Unfortunately her posterior is too large to allow her to fall all the way through the aperture and is stuck.

The screen goes dark...then back up to Brokaw, where we hear someone OC saying "go to a break." In the background on the big screen down on the convention floor, we see Hill's bigggg behind stuck in the trap door. Brokaw, who looks clueless for a few seconds, finally starts talking about technical difficulties.

McCain is up by 7 in Missouri, which is roughly where GWB stood in Missouri in 2000 and 2004 at this point.

Honestly, I was expecting the Democrats to win big this election cycle...but at this point TPTB in that party can't be happy with the current polling numbers.

The Democrats will win big in this election cycle in the house and senate.

I had thought so too, but I'm starting to get a feeling it won't be the slam dunk they think it is going to be.

Several people, including me, have commented along those lines in this thread and it makes me wonder about a tangent ... are we just now picking up on this?
Or do we perceive the demands/pressure being worse now than in years past? Or am I just a latecomer to the party & you (anybody who has said similar I mean) would have said the same thing four or eight years ago?

For me, I can't say I recall having such a consciousness of that point until this particular election. Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake.

I hear the stuff about miscues only on internet message boards. The media usually doesn't pick up on it and make it a story.

I distinguish the wrong city/yugoslavia stuff from the true "gaffes" that the media has loved as long as I can remember (Dukakis tank photo).

Right or wrong, I view the demands/pressure now being worse than in years past. Any time these candidates speak they have prospective bloggers with phone-cameras at the ready. Any stutter or slip of the tongue is being sent across the country instantly. A candidate used to be able to craft their message or their speaking style to the group they were talking to. With everything now being national, they have to gear up for being in front of a national audience all the time. That has to be a bit trying.

Describing yourself as a "maverick" who understands the life of an everyday American and then forgetting you have seven houses is not even close to comparable to forgetting where you are in the US as much traveling as politicians have to do.

I don't think you know what "maverick" means.

And I haven't seen McCain making an issue of Obama being "out of touch" economically with regular Americans. Obama started that, based on McCain's house thing.

I guarantee you Obama doesn't manage his own finances. Do you know who's "in touch" with Americans' financial situations? Me. I shouldn't be president though.

Wow.


Do you feel better now?

No, you clearly don't know.

The "maverick" label refers to him going against party lines. It has abolutely nothing to do with being in touch with anyone. Still waiting for your evidence that McCain has made an issue of him being more in touch, economically, with Americans than Obama.

Obama started the "I have less money" pissing contest, that we should vote for him because he has less houses.

I think Ace went over the top, but of course McCain is arguing he's more in touch. That's what the celebrity ads are all about. If you don't like those there's an economic ad that says something like,

"Celebrities don't have to worry about a budget, but we do."

I'm aware origin of the "maverick" label. The guy is the same ol', same ol'. McCain touted himself as this "rebel" who looks out for every American and understands the issues that a normal American has. The guy knew how many houses he had, and knew there wasn't a line to walk on between having seven houses and saying you understand the economic crisis that we're facing.

Also, I did no comparison about Obama/McCain and one being more in touch than the other. I was comparing on-camera gaffes.

Does anybody else think this is getting too much play? If you are rich enough to have multiple investment properties, and you marry into money, doesn't it seem reasonable to not know exactly how many properties you have? It isn't like he is forgetting how many houses he has that he lives in...

Couldn't disagree more than claim that you just made that he knew how many houses he had. He and his wife keep their finances separate. Most of their property is in her family's name. He deferred to his staff because he wasn't sure given their separate finances. With that said, I think it's relatively clear that outside of the Democrat voting base, not many people seemed to care. I think it's the same with the attacks by McCain's group on Obama. Obama's numbers aren't sliding because of the attack ads. They're sliding because he still hasn't clearly defined how he plans to create 'change'.

I'll have to agree to disagree.

His numbers are sliding because of a constant(justified or not) bombardment on his lack of experience. The ads as well as the poorly-timed Russian-Georgian conflict amplified this fact. Obviously, I am an Obama supporter, and as such, I see the potential that Obama can bring to the country. Again in my opinion, there is substance there, but using rational arguments based on policy stances is not the path to victory in American politics.

Given the "kept-man" attacks on Kerry because of his wife, I have very little sympathy.

I should add that I wish last week's big story didn't focus on houses, but on the timetable that seems to be agreed upon by the US and Iraq. But to paraphrase, you campaign on the stories the media finds important, not on the stories you wish were important.

McCain up +2 in latest Gallup tracker.

If Obama loses this election, part of the reason will be what is perceived as a lack of substance. He won't lose because he has fewer houses than McCain. So why not try to focus on the former instead of the latter? (Unless you want to distract voters from substance, which is what appears to be the intention).

But maybe I shouldn't doubt the Democratic election machine, they're obviously untouchable.

Or in other words, when an undecided moderate hears about this house stuff, do you think that's a plus or minus for Obama? It's 100% clear to me that it's a minus for him. But (some) Democrats are just obsessively concerned with riling themselves up. The idea is to convince others.

I agree to disagree that you agree to disagree. Don't ask..

This is unheard of. I don't think there's ever been an election where the opposing party got a bounce during the other party's convention.

***Hillary smirks while Bill pats her on the back***

I completely disagree. The isuue isn't house, but initiative. If Obama is going to win he needs to take back the initiative from the McCain camp. They've been very good over the past month at setting the rules for discussion. The general schedule has been McCain ad, TV discussion, Obama response. As long as that's the way the campaign runs McCain can win.

If, however, Obama can turn that around and put McCain on the defensive he'll be in a very strong position. Policy discussions aren't going to do it IMO. Look at this from an admittedly small focus group reported by Joe Klein,


I don't doubt that issues are important to you, but you're in the minority. Most independents are going to base their vote on much less substantive grounds. The house issue works in that it puts McCain on the defensive and damages his likability. I doubt it's enough, but like the celebrity stuff, it works.

I believe there actually was one. I know the range of 'bounces' in past elections have had the following range.......

Democrats: -1 up to +13
Republicans: +2 up to +12

The article I read didn't mention which election had a -1 bounce.

Of course. But I also think people are wondering what exactly Obama's message of change means. I think people want to see what his substance is beneath the style. The Democrats kept playing this card, using Hollywood and the glitz and glam that they like to play. They need to provide the independent and moderate voters reason to vote for them.

Here you go. Here's a table with the convention bounces going back 40-some years.......

HOW THE CONVENTION BALL BOUNCES, Crystal Ball, U.Va.

It's certainly not good news for Obama, but given that the poll was conducted almost entirely before evening coverage of the convention I don't think you can assign any connection to the convention. Tomorrow's poll will be the first sign of convention effects.

Wow, I wonder if the 1992 Democratic Convention really had anything to do with that crazy bounce.

Edit: Never mind, I missed that footnote about Perot

Definitely a downward trend on both sides. The conventions are just speeches now.

Those 1992 numbers are very interesting, especially when the urban legend about Perot costing Bush the 1992 election get regurgitated (even though exit polls don't support it). When Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton's numbers shot up, while Bush's remained relatively flat. Likewise, when Perot re-entered the race, Clinton's numbers dropped over time, Perot's numbers rose over time, and once again, Bush's numbers remained relatively flat in the upper 30's.

Not too thread jack but......... I saw a news video on a local channel here in Denver of Hilary with Chelsea and wow! When did Chelsea become a hottie? I mean she won't be in the next Miss America pageant but she has sprouted into a fine looking young woman. However, I am sure she has been helped by some serious plastic surgery (as Robin Williams calls it:the Clinton money). In any case I wouldn't toss her out of the sack.

The audio is terrible. Too much hall echo and crowd noise. For the love of God with all the Hollywood folks in the party I don't understand why the Democrats can't put on a TV show.

As for message, you'd think after getting our asses handed to us enough times we'd learn that Kumbya won't get it done.

TRAIL BLAZERS Blog | The Dallas Morning News

Charlie Wilson (yeah, the Ex-Texas Democratic Party Representative.. the guy they made the movie about) with the biggest WHOOPS of the year, speaking at an anti-war rally.

"We should be led by Osama bin Laden," he said, then quickly corrected himself. "I mean Obama and Biden."

Hillary's speech is a home run.

They need to stop regurgitating the whole "John McCain is my friend. He served the country honorably..." because they're just keeping the war hero thing alive. It's as if they're waiting to be accused of "not caring about veterans" if they don't kiss his ass.

That said, she's kicking his ass. Any media story that wants to say "Clinton folks voting for McCain" has been rendered useless. They'll still try, but she's erasing any doubt that she's trying to undermine this thing.

Can she speak again tomorrow?

The Gallup tracker that shows McCain ahead is a 5 day rolling average, so it is still including data from before the convention.

You think Bill is gonna do worse? C'mon now. Slick Willy is ready to play ball.

I'm just thankful I don't have to hear Warner or Leach again.

Meh, she ran her whole campaign on trying to make gender a non-issue (I'm just as qualified as the guys to be commander in chief), and now she spends 75% of her speech talking about how she did so much for the womanhood of America.

hmmm, interesting take on CNN...Perhaps she did TOO well? I saw an interview with a Clinton supporter wherein she hung her hat on Clinton's ability based on what 'you saw' in her speech. Is it possible that the speech was so good that it will embolden the Clinton delegates to raise a ruckus?

Are they comparing this to HRC tonight to Regan at the 76 Republican Convention?

Hillary was awesome and I am very proud of her. I think if Bill closes the deal about being ready to be the man for Barack, its a lock for Obama & Co.

I think the Hil-Bill duo is meant to give the country a "gee, weren't the 90s so great?" feeling...with Barack getting the relay baton on Thursday night to win the last leg of the race.

I don't think the hype is nearly as big as the AP/CNN/MSM gulag are trying to pass off to us, related to the whole yay Hillary contingent. Obviously November will tell us the truth, but I'm not buying it.

She mentioned Obama ten times during her speech. Reagan did not mention Gerald Ford by name in his 1976 speech, and Ted Kennedy mentioned Jimmy Carter once during his 1980 speech.

A couple of things I noticed in Hillary's speech last night...........

1. She talked through the applause A LOT. Perhaps someone told her to make sure the speech didn't run too late, but it was terribly annoying that she gave very few dramatic pauses.

2. Her presentation style was pretty good. I think it was better than anything she had done in the campaign.

3. She didn't give Barack Obama any praise at all. Her lone praise for the ticket was given to Biden. Michele Obama only received a nod as 'someone who would be a good first lady'. Barack didn't even get that. Every comment was that people should support Barack followed by comments about her platform and why it should be supported. That speech was all about Hillary with a few weak nods to unity. All I saw was a lady who was setting herself up for a run in 2012 and using Obama's convention as a way to pave that path.

4. Bill Clinton was borderline smug for most of the speech. He knew exactly what she was doing and was glowing in the thoughts of a run in 2012. Meanwhile, several shots of Michele Obama showed a tense or worried look on her face. I've read several books about non-verbal communication. Michele Obama was not comfortable at all with the situation. I can only imagine the tension in the hall when Bill steps to the podium tonight.

OK, so I wasn't the only one to notice the lack of Obama praise. Noticed this article linked over at Electoral-Vote.com after I put up my thoughts......

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix...-clintons.html

She did exactly what Obama needed. She couldn't have been clearer to her supporters that they should support Obama, especially with the what are you in it for section. She also took some good shots at McCain. She went well beyond what Reagan or Kennedy did and all of the analysis that she was secretly damning him is too clever by half.

She attacked conservative policies more than she attacked McCain, just as she supported liberal policies more than she actually supported Obama. It was all about her, to the point where she even evoked her husband's legacy at one point. Bill remained seated as a weak nod to the fact that it's Obama's convention, but you know he wanted to pop right up and stroke his ego.

You're correct that she told the supporters to support Obama, but she couldn't have done any less to actually define him as a person or as a candidate. After watching that speech last night, all I could think was that if she was the candidate, that speech wouldn't have been nearly as restrained as it was.

I guess my ESP isn't as strong as yours.

They're rivals, not friends. She couldn't come out and pretend the primaries didn't happen. I have no idea if it will make a difference in the polls, but she did far more than similar politicians in this situation. One speech can't be everything to every person. Her primary mission was to heal the rift in the party and I think she did that about as well as she could have.

Her job wasn't to define Obama. He needs to do that for himself. If he can't, he doesn't deserve to win. Hillary's job isn't to deliver him to the White House, if it was, he'd have picked her as his running mate. I agree with JPhil, she did far more than was expected of her and was laudable and I think said enough of the right things that his side can't complain about being undermined by Team Clinton anymore, even as the media will pound this angle into the ground because it's more interesting to them than just talking about coronation.

Today's roll call will be very telling. Reportedly, the Hillary supporters want a full roll call without any suspension of voting. Anything less won't be acceptable, although I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillary jump to the front of the New York delagates and request a suspension of voting in yet another move to draw more attention to herself.

I disagree that she did anything close to as well as she could have. If she would have spoke at a more personal level about Obama as a candidate, THEN she would have done as well as she could have.

BTW, the video introduction by the DNC was pretty interesting. They didn't paint her as the worthy advisary who nearly won the nomination. Rather, they painted her as a women's rights hero. I have no doubt that she found that a bit condescending. She deserved more than that given her role in the party and this election.

Your phrasing brought to mind an interesting distinction that I think might be made.

Her job may not have been to define Obama, but doing so very well could be how she would have helped him the most.

Which is precisely the point that is being discussed. She provided exactly what was asked of her and not a single thing more. It was in her best interest regarding her political future to do that.

Hillary did a great job. They portrayed Hillary as a larger than life female hero, which is what was necessary to subdue the angry, suburban women who personally identified with Clinton's wins and losses. She was very definitive in her questioning of the motives of these scorned, democratic women voters. What I took out of it is, "if you like the same things that I do, vote Obama, because McCain won't do it."

Now, Bill needs to come on stage and say what qualities he and Obama have in common that will make him a good president and what qualities Bush and McCain have in common that will make McCain a bad president.

I have another question with the polling. Now I've been out of school for a couple of years now, but how can you call a poll valid if the difference between the candidates is less than or equal to the margin of error?

Interesting. My mom is a Hillary supporter and she reacted quite differently. She had said earlier in the year after Obama finally wrapped it up that she would probably vote for McCain. After last night's speech, she sent me an e-mail saying that speech convinced her that the Dems picked the wrong candidate and that she would vote for McCain so that Hillary could run in 2012. Logic is a bit warped IMO, but I'm sure that she's not the only 'scorned' female baby boomer thinking that same thing.

Must be genetic.

I don't see why Hilary can't just run in 2016 if Obama wins. That seems more amenable than trying to run against an incumbent McCain in 2012.

:lol:.......:popcorn:

Now see, an attack on McCain even close to something like that from Hillary last night would have been much better than what she did, at least from Obama's perspective. :)

As I said before, she mentioned Obama ten times during the speech. Ronald Reagan did not even mention Gerald Ford by name in his 1976 speech, and Ted Kennedy mentioned Jimmy Carter once in his 1980 speech. Ted Kennedy never even endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Her primary was the closest, hardest fought primary in modern history, and she has gone much farther in her endorsement of Obama than past candidates in other hard fought past primaries have done for their nominee.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't McCain said on more than one occasion that he would only be a one-term president?

To paraphrase, not all white people have the taint of the Illuminati.

As for the video, you're reaching too far, the Thomason's produced it.

I've heard it talked about that he was going to announce this, but I don't think I ever heard an official announcement. Even so, getting in the way of a Democratic nominee now to try to become the Democratic nominee in 4 years sounds like a terribly risky plan.

Does she have any other option? She's not getting any younger. She'll be 69 years of age in 2016.

The one term talk has largely gone away since McCain's team change. It seems like a terrible plan IMO. Why would you want to start from day one as a lame duck especially given that you'll be fighting a hostile Congress?

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Clinton's numbers only went up when Obama and McCain stopped attacking her and started attacking each other (and Clinton kept attacking Obama). She hasn't been attacked in any real sense since early March.

If she had won the nomination and McCain had been blasting the airwaves with negative stuff about her and Bill and no one had attacked Obama for the last two months and you had all of these young Obama supporters talking to the media saying "I'm just going to stay home on election day because it is the same old shit," we would be having the opposite discussion right now. We would all be saying "How the hell could the Dems have nominated the most divisive Democrat of the last 20 years when they had the chance to nominate the liberal Regan?"

The runner-up in these situations is like a backup quarterback. You forget the flaws when they are not playing and only see the flaws of the starter.

dola--

I am not saying that Clinton would have been a worse choice that Obama in terms of winning. I don't know if we will ever know that. I'm just saying that the media is engaging in a lot of strange hindsight.

Mark this day on your calendar. I NEVER thought that I'd be bringing up the same points as a Maureen Dowd editorial, yet that day has arrived.........

High Anxiety in the Mile High City - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

Great post. I agree. And I also agree with Mizzou that she did only what she had to but not anything extra. Regardles of the reasons why it sure wasn't what I was hoping from her as an Obama supporter. I also, felt it was 80% "see how great I am and Bill was as a President".When she was speaking I almost forgot that Obama was the nominee. I am assuming it will be even worse. One of the things I have disagreed with is Obama not trying to go out and bury thre hatchet with the Clintons in a public way especially Bill. Bill has an enormous ego from all accounts and he had to have it stroked. Now Obama might have to have Michelle visit Bill to get him to give a sincere speech:D

I'm really looking forward to all the column inches devoted to disaffected conservatives unhappy with McCain next week.

Won't happen. Republicans aren't nearly as good at self-loathing as Democrats. :)

Barring a pro-choice VP selection, the Republican convention won't be nearly as exciting. It'll be 4 relatively boring days of rah-rah speeches. The only exception would be if Kay Bailey Hutchinson was selected as VP. That would be an interesting turn and could prompt an exodus of Clinton supporters.

That means it's roughly a tie. If the margin of error is 3% and I'm ahead in the poll by 2 points, the range is -1% to 5%.

One poll by itself will never give an accurate picture. Watch the moving averages and the overall trends.

That would be interesting. What's her stance on abortion? This is probably sexist assertion, but being a woman I'd guess pro-choice, right?

Correct. She is pro-choice. So you'd have the Christian right grumbling while some of the Clinton voters may be won over. Somewhat of a trade-off, but it would make the convention very interesting.

It'd be a very interesting gamble.

Clinton supporters are extremely compassionate. McCain's already subtly reached out to them in his "passed over" ad (which argues that Clinton was "right" about Obama, with relevant sound bites).

It'd be a gamble that you'd bring over more voters than you'd lose. In a practical sense, who the hell cares what the VP's abortion views are, even if you're the most raging pro-life person in the world? (though I know people don't think practically about these things).

McCain doesn't seem to need a gamble at this point though, so I think he'll be way more conservative.

I know that Rush Limbaugh has said that the religious right would stay way from the polls if the VP was pro-choice. I don't buy that at all.

I do agree about not needing to gamble. The polling numbers are all going in McCain's direction at this point. Probably not a good idea to change course when everything's going well.

I agree with you. Anyone who cares enough to threaten to not vote cares too much to actually not vote.

Another article on the fallout from the Clinton/Obama feud. This one's from the front page of the Washington Post. Looks like many Clinton supporters plan on leaving town before Obama even speaks.......

Many Clinton Supporters Say Speech Didn't Heal Divisions

I don't think I quite ever understood why Obama/Clinton wasn't the right ticket for the Dems.

What I don't get is what Obama did to Clinton to make people act like this. If Obama lost I would have voted for Hilary. All these stupid asses that don't vote, whether its a non-vote for McCain or Obama, can't complain about shit the next 4 years.

Because Bill and Hillary were hoping for Clinton/Obama.

I don't think it's necessarily a "protest vote", or that Obama "did anything". I think a lot of Clinton supporters are generally afraid of an Obama presidency (based on that article and many others like it). I think they'd legitmately think McCain is the better option '08-'12, and then they'll support Clinton again after that.

You also touched on something that I wish people would actually talk about.

What will the US be like the next 4 years with McCain?
What will the US be like the next 4 years with Obama?
Will there be any difference at all?

That's the essence of this election, and where I wish more of the discussion was. It's not about the "issues", everybody knows where people theoretically stand at this point. I want to hear arguments about what's actually going to happen.

Obama's not going to be able to "bring the troops home" before 2012. So his views on Iraq don't really matter much, since there's no practical difference there. Will the economy be better? Why? How exactly will he pull that off? They're both saying pretty much the same stuff about energy, I don't believe either will be bold enough to do what really needs to be done there either. How will my life be better with Obama in charge? How long do I have to wait for that to happen?

I don't think Obama did much of anything to be honest. The Clintons started this feud and it's become apparant that they plan to be the ones to win it as well. Obama has halted the Clinton family's second ascension to the throne and they're none too happy about it. This kind of reaction from the Clinton's honestly isn't that surprising to most people.

I just don't understand how any Clinton supporters would choose McCain over Obama. Clinton's and Obama's viewpoints and the policies they would try to enact are more similar than Clinton's and McCain's. Racism is about the only thing that comes to mind.


Would she even have accepted the VP nomination?

A Democrat voting for McCain doesn't have nearly the effect of the opposite situation. If McCain is elected, he'll still face a major check of power in the form of a Democrat majority (and possibly super-majority) in one or both houses of Congress. He'll have his hands tied and won't be able to make any major policy changes or judicial nominations.

On the other hand, the religious right has much more at stake in the form of judicial nominations. An unchecked Democrat majority in Congress in coordination with a Democrat president could push through as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations along with numerous Circuit court nominations. They could put the judicial system squarely against the religious right for years to come. Failing to vote in the upcoming election would prove disasterous for them.

Wait a second, Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain, with whom they disagree on nearly everything? That's ridiculous.

While Obama and McCain differ, neither one of them is going to change the direction of the country in any meaningful way.

It's not about viewpoints or issues. Jimmy Bob down the street has great viewpoints. Doesn't mean he'd be a good president.

Yeah because the Democrats have really stood up to Bush.:rolleyes: They really oppose his policies! :rolleyes: