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?