A couple of things here...

I was pointing out that Cindy's drug "problem" is pretty common knowledge to most folks with any interest in politics. If things get ugly, it will get hammered. I think some of the things that make her "elite" could also get a lot of play -- the fact that she bought a plane and took flying lessons without her husband knowing (an anecdote she tells that, to me, reinforces how much more money they have than common Americans AND how out of touch they may be with one another), the fact that she essentially adopted a child without consulting her husband, the fact that she and John had an affair while he was previously married, that her teenage children have credit cards with limits in the 10s of thousands, etc. Things like these are not necessarily secret or can/have kind of slide/slid under the radar while things remain civil.

The stuff about McCain using her private plane and violating campaign laws should be getting a lot more play right now, especially in light of his mock outrage over Obama declining funds, but it is the type of thing that is too complex for most voters to follow or care about and is the type of thing that makes Dems look too eggheaded if they harp on it too much. McCain is a hypocrite when it comes to campaign finance laws and lobbyists, but understanding those types of "issues" AND caring about them is outside the range of the common voter.

At least Cindy McCain never killed anyone(that we know of)

Another trusty poll shows

Obama 69%
McCain 29%

134 persons polled.

Swaggs' post reminds me that I read the McCain's have credit card debt (on AMEX, no less) of over $100,000, that AMEX inexplicably allows them to carry over.

Well, maybe not inexplicably since I assume AMEX knows Cindy has money to cover it. Still, as others have said, some of this may eventually come out (and I'd expect 527s at least to use it).

Why doesn't she just have a black card? Maybe they do and just don't talk about it?

I'm assuming they have a black card, and also assuming that they don't have to pay it off each month.

Kay Bailey Hutchison was hilarious on CNBC this morning. 'McCain's flip-flop is a good thing, they show thoughtfulness' (I immediately looked for any comments she may have made on Kerry regarding flipfloppedness but ran out of time). She than said we should be drilling in ANWAR....because there are no trees there, no forest. I find that hard to believe Kay. Then when Joe asked her if they patch the AMT tax how will they pay for the things in Bush's budget because he cites that money in his budget. She said "We dont need to pay for it." AHHHHHH, business as usual.

I'm a bit curious about all of the ranting recently in the media about how Obama can't be president because he will refuse to allow for more oil drilling at home and we should elect McCain because he will allow it. If this drilling is so important to Republicans, why haven't we been doing more of it with a Republican president? It isn't like rising gas prices has been a surprise. We aren't just now figuring out that adding oil to the supply might drop prices and scare away speculators...

I am not much of a Republican lover but this post makes no sense. The republicans have for the most part suppoted drilling and have been blocked by the democrats. And the gas crisis (at least the $4 a gallon crisis) is fairly recent. So it is a huge story.

Of course, maybe the oil companies should start drilling on many of the leases they already have.

You'll have to ask the Democrat-controlled Congress. Certainly, the Republicans would have had us drilling long ago if they had the option.

It's silly that the U.S. continues to follow this policy. The technology is there to drill for oil both in the sea and up north with minimal impact on the environment. Meanwhile, countries like Cuba are allowing the Chinese to drain these oil reserves not more than 150 miles from our coast with far less concern for their impact on the environment.

I find the argument that 'drilling won't have any impact for 8-10 years' to be pretty weak. There's no real downside to drilling. Worst case, we have an increase in oil production down the road that will assist in our supply issue. Best case, we already have alternatives up and running and the extra oil provides a cushion that will further reduce our need for foreign fuel or hopefully remove it altogether.

Nah. She's perceived as too close to big oil. Wrong year for that.

We've had a Democrat controlled Congress recently, but didn't we have a Republican controlled Congress during Bush's first term? I just don't remember hearing much talk about drilling locally before it became a campaign point. I've also heard predictions for quite a while that gas would hit $4/gallon. It seems rather silly that nobody really planned for it until it actually happened.

I'd love to see the decision to drill happen just to make all of the speculators scatter. People keep saying that just the threat of drilling will cause prices to drop, so I say start threatening and see what happens.

The Republicans controlled the White House and Congress for six years between 2000 and 2006 and did virtually nothing. GWB was even opposed to offshore drilling off of Florida (largely because of brother Jeb's anti-drilling stance).

The prices weren't as much of an issue during the first term. People didn't truly reach a pain threshold in regards to prices until his second term.

This NewsHour transcript is pretty telling to me in regards to the arguments for/against the drilling. While one person is dramatizing the 'permanant scarring of the land', a Native Alaskan who lives in the area notes that, despite the native population's initial concerns in the early 1970s, the footprint of the oil drills has decreased ten-fold since the 1970s and that the caribou population is thriving with very little impact taking place at this point.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/envir...anwr_11-2.html

Florida has changed quite a bit in that regard. I think we'll see a lot more of this in the days to come.......

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/573350.html

but apparently there's not one tree in ANWAR cuz I was concerned that it was, y'know, wilderness and all.

---based on what KB Hutchison said today.

Like between 2000 and 2006?


O RLY?

Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla):


Vice President Richard Cheney (R-Pure Evil):



Aside from the release of contaminants (planned or accidental) into the environment, of course.

I'll never forget Cheney lying in the debate and John Edwards hammering him repeatedly on it. Over and over and over. The questioner had moved on to something less important and Edwards would go, "Ill answer your question in a second but first....Dick, you said, not 30 seconds ago...." too funny, had me on my feet.

Here's another example since I obviously missed the correction on that example. No drilling on the Great Lakes on the U.S. side while Canada has over 1,000 rigs in Lake Erie alone.

http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/z...reat_lakes.htm



Great. Let's assume you're right in this point. What would be the alternative? I have no political preference in this fight as I just want cheaper prices. I could blame both parties as they've both had full power at some point since the Carter administration. But that doesn't do a lick of good. Are we arguing who the bigger morons are or what is the best way to resolve the issue?

I would put a ton of money on Obama to win this thing - I wonder where the weird internet gambling sites put the odds (can't check at work).

And I think we need a little more pain to get off oil, it'll be worth it in the long run. Environmentally, politically, security-wise. I would be all for drilling if our consumption could continue to go down.

Absolutely. Politicians need their feet to the fire. One of the quickest ways for that to happen is for economic forces to push those buttons to the point where the public starts to push for change.

As I stated before, though, there are a lot of unused drilling leases currently held by oil companies on U.S. soil. As such, the absence of rigs on U.S. soil may not necessarily indicate that the oil companies don't have permission to drill, but that they haven't bothered to. In this light, their lobbying to get yet more regions opened up for drilling is merely a land grab.

Not that I blame them. They are businesses, after all. They should be looking to acquire as many leases as possible, as it helps their business in the long term. However we, as the landowners, have the right and responsibility to ask them why they aren't developing the land we already leased to them.


On the pollution front I'm arguing that the short-term relief (which is not guaranteed anyway) we'd get on petroleum prices from expanded drilling is not worth the long-term price in environmental damage.

This is my opinion, based on my own personal values. You or many other people may not agree with my judgment, and I accept that.

On the issue of the high price of oil, I'm arguing that the remedies being offered by the oil companies, their lobbyists and their surrogates in Congress and the White House are demonstrably ephemeral at best, and possibly counter-productive at worst. It is long past time we started looking seriously at conservation and alternative sources of energy, and if this is the kick in the pants we need to get really moving on those, then so be it. I also don't buy the counter-argument that it'll put us as at a competitive disadvantage largely because it puts pretty much everyone as the same competitive disadvantage.

Well, wouldn't this be an argument against drilling?

That would be a sucker bet, because Obama is about a 2 to 1 favorite right now. The true value right now should be about 5 to 4. I think QuikSand bought a bunch of McCain stock a couple of months ago at about .30, which has a huge amount of value. Unless McCain dies before the election, Quik will be able to sell that off for a decent profit later this fall.

^^ Right around the Republican Convention, I should think.

Not necessarily. We still need something to hold us over until the new technologies are in place. Just because we don't want to be dependent on oil, especially foreign oil, in the future doesn't mean you abandon it as a fuel source over the next 10-20 years. That need still must be met.

Definitely. You can't replace foreign oil with domestic drilling obviously, but maybe you could come closer if people consumed WAY less, and the technology was WAY better. And the former would happen because gas would cost way more.

But just drilling more domestically now with no other changes, for possible minor relief, is just silly and short-sighted. It's just a way to pander to the masses.

So my guess is that you'd be in support of the "Energy X-Prize" idea that McCain proposed that offers incentive to private companies/individuals to essentially expedite a move to a more energy efficient engine in a timely manner that would not occur in the conventional setup that we currently have? Similar prizes have done wonders in the flight and space industries to boost innovative ideas.

Actually, I find it ironic that McCain, of the supposedly free-market GOP, feels that it's necessary to have government subsidize the development of a technology that, if created, would certainly reap its creator billions of dollars in revenue. ;)

I'm generally in favor of "X-Prizes" for technological developments that won't necessarily have an immediate payback for their creators (like the Spaceflight one, for instance). This creates an incentive, as you say, for such developments.

I guess I don't see why we should need to do an X-Prize-style award for a considerably more energy efficient engine when there's plenty of demand for such an engine already and the market would certainly reward anyone who brought one to market.

Sounds like a typical liberal big-government, loose-spending, Democratic ploy to me. :D

This seems like a no-brainer idea. What is the normal payout for something like this...1 million? 10 million? Whatever it is, we get the private sector to spend way more doing their own research and development. Tap the experts that are out there and offer a big payday for their work. Everybody wins.

I'm definitely going to point back to this page in this thread the next time JiMGA or Arles calls me a big-government Socialist. :D

In my mind, the x-prize would have to be for some sort of alternate-fuel engine, not just a more efficient gas-run engine. Market rewards for this wouldn't necessarily be immediate because of the infrastructure required to deliver this fuel. Seems like a good way to give some an immediate pay-off while they wait years for the alternative to go mainstream.

electoral-vote.com has lots of polls for today...

CO: Obama 49-44 (Quinnipiac)
MI: Obama 48-42 (Quinnipiac)
MN: Obama 54-37 (Quinnipiac)
MS: McCain 50-44 (Rasmussen)
TN: McCain 51-36 (Rasmussen)
TX: McCain 43-38 (Texas Lyceum)
WI: Obama 52-39 (Quinnipiac)

Also, some Senate polls:

CO: Udall (D) 48, Schaffer (R) 38 (Quinnipiac)
MN: Coleman (R) 51, Franken (D) 41 (Quinnipiac)
MS: Wicker (R) 48, Musgrove (D) 47 (Rasmussen)
NJ: Lautenberh (D) 45, Zimmer (R) 28



*Obama is only down by 6 in Mississippi? (Bush won by 20 and 17). He's only down by 5 in Texas? Wow.

*Bad news for Franken as his numbers have been dropping and he's running 13 points behind Obama.

*Lautenberg looked in trouble in earlier polls, but looks like he's sailing now.

Huh? Udall is running for Senate in New Mexico, his opponent is Pearce.

Bush was a South governor running against a white guy from New England. McCain is running against a black candidate. I'm surprised that you're surprised at those numbers. I'd be surprised if Obama wasn't closer. No one should be surprised that he's closed in where large black populations exist.

Udall's cousin.

Especially since McCain is an Arizonian and the base is already skeptical of his conservatism.

Ah. I had no idea. That would be confusing, two Udall (D) Senators. Luckily they'll be from different states, but still.

Still, a 14 point swing is pretty big. And I figured race would hurt Obama in Mississippi as much as it would help him. Obama's numbers are about even to Clinton's 92 and 96 numbers here.

Whether it should be a surprise or not, the fact that McCain has to pay attention to states like Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia is a pretty serious problem for the GOP.

That would make sense if there were alot of undecideds in the poll, but that's not the case. They may be skeptical, but do you really think the conservative southern base disikes him so much that they're willing to switch to Obama? If so, then McCain should just quit now.

Let's not go crazy here. He's still ahead in those states and there's 5 months before the election with basically no campaigning\debates\dirt throwing. This race is just starting up.

Your Udall Primer:
Tom Udall = NM
Mark Udall = Colorado
Stewart Udall = AZ
Mo Udall = AZ/RIP

I'm just saying that if the GOP candidate can't hold on to conservative southern whites against a liberal African-American candidate, that's pretty sad. I'm not saying that's the case here. I was just responding to someone else's scenario.

Really? What previous precedent do we have involving an African-American candidate to compare it to? You can be sure that there are going to be plenty of surprising results/exchanges during this campaign and you can also be sure that both sides are going to take some hits that they don't expect due to the unusual nature of this race (older, moderate Republican candidate vs. an African-American liberal candidate).

More polls today from electoral-vote.com

Kentucky: McCain 51-35
New Jersey: Obama 49-33
Ohio: Obama 48-46
Texas: Mccain 48-39

Senate

Kentucky: McConnell (R) 48, Lunsford (D) 39
Texas: Cornyn (R) 49, Noriega (D) 35

McCains Defaulted On Home Taxes For Last Four Years, Newsweek Reports


Don't know if the story has legs, but it's certainly not good press.

So far, the press has all but ignored the ever-growing list of issues McCain changes sides on (often from day to day), so I'd be shocked if this minor indiscretion raises a peep.

This was my thinking.

An OpEd article today from our libertarian-leaning paper (referencing Obama's stop here locally):

LET'S WELCOME BARACK OBAMA

Barack Obama, welcome to Colorado Springs. As the man who stands a good chance of becoming the next president of the United States, please set your heart and mind on no other goal than great and sophisticated leadership of what's supposed to serve as the freest country on earth. You stand not only a good chance of getting elected, but you have the intellect, the personality and oratory skills to serve as one of our gifted leaders, in league with Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan.

You promise change. So please take to heart the fact that more growth of federal services and powers would be the farthest thing from change. George Bush has spent eight years giving us big government, all intended to change and enhance the American experience.

Under the leadership of Bush, federal education spending increased by three-fifths in just his first term - to change things for children. He federalized an education system that had been localized throughout our nation's history. He created a prescription drug benefit, the first new entitlement program since Medicare - to change things for seniors. With the Department of Homeland Security, he created the largest federal bureaucracy in history - a change to make us safer. He proposed the first $2 trillion and $3 trillion budgets in history, changing our government's debt load. He seldom said "no, that's not the proper role of federal government." Bush was five years into his presidency before he vetoed a bill. He outspent any other president in history, trying to use government as a tool to change the world. The only visible move Bush made in the direction of a smaller, less intrusive government involved his nominations of strict, limitedgovernment, constructionist jurists to the federal bench.

"Government is not the solution," President Ronald Reagan said in 1981, after Americans had grown tired of a post-New Deal/Great Society big government economy in shambles.

In a 1996 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton agreed. He declared: "the era of big government is over."

By the time Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton were done, government spending had dipped to 18.4 percent of the gross domestic product - its lowest level since 1966. America thrived. During the Bush II presidency, government grew to consume 20 percent of the GDP in 2007, and the 2008 figure is certain to be higher.

Give us change, Mr. Obama, by giving us less. Don't tell states what their abortion laws should be. Don't try to give all Americans health care, a feat government can't possibly achieve without wreaking havoc. Don't increase overhead for businesses by imposing enhancements of the Family Medical Leave Act. Don't try to solve global warming by capping emissions.

Your goals are extraordinary. Nobody wants children to go without health care. Nobody wants Greenland to melt. But a president can't just give us better lives. Craft the country you envision not by force, but by leadership. Use your gift for communication, and your obvious love for this country, to urge people to greatness. Inspire and motivate, rather than promise dictates and mandates, and you may land in the White House. Anyone can dictate and impose. Only a genuine leader can inspire, motivate and lead. You could be that man. But tired old talk of government fixes won't get the job done. It didn't work for Bush II, and it won't work for you.

McCain Orders Shake-Up of His Campaign


Any emphasis added by me.

The idea that McCain's not exploited the 4-month advantage he had on Obama seems pretty clear, though how he was supposed to get airtime during that nomination process between Obama & Clinton is a good question.

Still, he's clearly behind at the moment and the decision to bring in some more ruthless tacticians seems to be the next step. Now let's see if Obama's campaign, which has said they're ready for the upcoming smear campaign, can put their money where their mouth is.

here come the 527's

Well, at least we won't have to worry about the Swift Boaters, given that they're working directly for the McCain campaign now.

Clark seems to have learned from them in his recent comments. It's going to start to get ugly for both sides starting in the next few weeks.

I heard Ed Schultz pound McCain today for his wife's unpaid property taxes, calling it a character issue. I tried to call in and bring up Obama's unpaid parking tickets, but no one ever answered the phone. :(

i think both are much ado about nothing and I hope the shit like that stays out of the main press. I also have fear that at some point one of the contenders (more likely McCain) will become desperate and begin an attack trend bent on thrashing the opponent (in this scenario Obama) and end up destroying whatever's left of our country's heart (in the near term). Im just not sure people can take it this summer.

Recent Rasmussen polls...

Florida: McCain 48-41
Connecticut: Obama 52-35
Massachusetts: Obama 53-33
New York: Obama 60-29

Florida is very good news for McCain, while the CT poll brings things back to reality. Obama was only leading by 1 there in an earlier poll, which didn't sound right.

McCain has to (and will) go pretty negative. Obama wins if people believe that he is different and can and will move past "I didn't have sex with that woman"/"John Kerry faked his war wounds" politics. McCain has a chance to win if people end up disillusioned and thinking that this election is the same old shit, different year. If he attacks Obama, and Obama does not respond, then Obama is weak (and, since negative ads work, they will give McCain an advantage). If he attacks Obama, and Obama responds in kind, then Obama is the same old shit. Either way, advantage McCain. McCain needs to drag this into the gutter ASAP.

It is kind of ironic because Bush did the same thing to McCain in the 2000 primaries when McCain was the maverick outsider and Bush was the establishment choice. The establishement always has the advantage when voters are disheartened.

Finally, I would note that I would be feeling pretty good about this election season if I were a Republican. The GOP might lose the White House for the next 4-8 years. But, considering what Bush has done, the fact that the GOP still stands a 1/3 chance of pulling this out (see www.fivethirtyeight.com ) indicates that America has the GOP in its DNA. As soon as Bush is in the rear-view mirror, people will come flocking back.

I think you have to give Cindy McCain a pass on the property taxes. After all, she was probably too hopped up on stolen painkillers to notice she had taxes to pay. ;)

Talking about a character issue, how about McCain flying to Canada (on his wife's plane, unreimbursed) to give a speech and attend a fundraising dinner, while the campaign finance legislation which bears his name expressly forbids fundraising from foreigners? Good stuff. :D

I think this will be mostly a pretty cordial campaign. I know quite a few people who are big Obama fans, and most of them like McCain as well, and think he's a fine person. I think that goes the other way, too. I am one of the biggest McCain honks you'll ever meet, but Obama doesn't repulse me the way Gore and Clinton did, for example. I am not saying there won't be negative campaigning, but I don't think it has the same high yield potential as in recent presidential seasons.

The last three states have always been blue states. Not sure what's so surprising about those poll results. It's the swing states, like Florida, that matter.

I agree with this. I think the GOP has some new blood (with women like Palin and Hutchinson, Huckabee, and others) that could help give the GOP a makeover and a new appeal.

Where did I say they were surprising? These were just the results they had today. I posted an analysis of them and at no point did I say they were surprising.

The more surprising result is the Montana poll that has Obama up by five. I doubt it will hold, but no wonder McCain's campaign is panicking and completely revamping itself.

Montana isn't too surprising. it's a bit different than the rest of that region. Clinton won it in 1992 based on economic concerns, and I could see Obama doing the same this year.

Some new and, in my opinion, crazy polls out today, courtesy of electoral-vote.com:

Georgia Obama=44% McCain=46% Insider Advantage
Montana Obama=48% McCain=43% Rasmussen

As the guy at electoral-vote says, let's wait for some corroborating polls. If these turn out to be accurate, though, that's a portent of doom for McCain.

Obama's spending the day in Montana, which obviously, has been huge news there, so I wouldn't read into any poll results from there until that dies down.

I personally don't start paying attention to polls until mid-September.

The Georgia one does not surprise at all, and I'll say that Obama is going to be close in Georgia and may even have a slight lead at times in polls until the election. Will that mean he wins Georgia? That may be less likely. But there is no doubt that he will not lose by the gaps the Dems lost in the last two elections.

I don't know, man. I wish I could agree with you.

I doubt the campaign will stay cordial for much longer. After all, McCain just appointed a Rove apprentice to head his campaign, and has staffed his "Truth Squad" with the Swift Boat guys from 2004. It's only a matter of time. And on the Obama side, if he picks someone like Webb or Clark as VP (i.e. a military guy) it's going to be brutal as they lay into McCain's record on Iraq, his record on "supporting the troops" (read: G.I. Bill), his lack of distinction at the Naval Academy, and his propensity to cloak himself in his POW experiences.

I'll agree that I think things between the two candidates themselves will stay pretty cordial, assuming McCain can keep his temper under control.

History may repeat itself again. The one with most legendary temper in high politics in the past generation has been Bill Clinton and he couldn't hold his temper numerous times on the primaries trail.

Speaking of history repeating, I saw a bumper sticker today that brought back memories. Most of you were too young to remember the 1992 campaign, at least the day-to-day stuff. Back then, the theme was "hope" and "change". Many bought into solely because of fatigue after 12 years of Reagan/Bush1 and people just wanted something different. Most probably realistically didn't think it would be change for the better (i.e., still mage-partisanship) but that didn't matter. They simply wanted something new, esp. in difficult economic times. I see a lot of parallels between 1992 and 2008 (including a race wild card instead of a 3rd-party wild card) - simple political fatigue in difficult economic times - and a message of "hope" and "change".

Obama's decision to hold his acceptance speech at Mile High and have a radio station giveaway-like fundraiser (give at least $5 and get a chance to win one of 10 trips to the convention) is brilliant. A packed Mile High is going to look mighty impressive on TV. I find the giveaway a bit distasteful, though. For a guy who is taking a bunch of criticism for being elitist, I'm not sure treating him like Bono is a smart move.

Obama is rock star.

Mediocrity, surrender, appeasement of your enemies... These are just meaningless words. Nobody likes mediocrity, surrendering, or giving your "enemies" a helping hand.

Not being far right or far left isn't being committed to nothing... It's being committed to something (or a lot of things) that don't happily sit under one of the two umbrellas. I think it's safe to say I lean left, but at the same time I think the far left are very, very naive and very, very unrealistic.

As for the far right, well, they are just plain evil. :D

But more seriously, the far right are, typically, far less honest and humanistic than the left, though a good deal more realistic. Rhetoric is their strongpoint, and that's probably my biggest gripe. I guess some of my views on certain things could be considered pretty far right, but it'd be a minority.

So there is no term like far left or far right that fits me, because I don't just subscribe to whatever happens to get put under each respective umbrella term. Again, doesn't mean I don't believe in anything.

I hope Obama wins because I think he is a pretty interesting guy, and though I doubt it will really make much of a difference who wins, I guess a part of me is strangely still optimistic.

Having said that, I unfortunately just can't see a guy like Obama getting in to the Oval Office over a guy like McCain.

Exactly. For a guy labeled as elitist and more about personality and flash than substance, this seems to feed right into that criticism. Still a brilliant move, though. I suspect this election is not going to be close. McCain is Dole...without a serious 3rd party to make the gap smaller than it otherwise would be.

Clinton/Gore came out of the DLC wing of the party (which is almost non-existent now), and they ran on a very centrist, substantive platform in 1992. It remains to be seen what the Obama/????? ticket will do. We know that he gives great speeches, but we'll see what happens when the real campaign begins this fall.

You are thinking we might have substantiveness??? In these times???? Just a few sound bites of the politicians telling you want to hear and the promise that Washington DC will solve all of the problems are all that is needed.

What do you mean by you hope he wins because he is interesting?

Fortune has a great feature, "How I'll fix the economy", that looks at both candidates in-depth.

People still believe that a president can "fix" the economy? oh goodie.

I find him interesting because there is a lot about him (esp. his personal values and his past) that does't align up with what I expect from a presidential candidate.

If he gets in I'll be interested in what, if anything, he does about some of these issues.

Problem I get with Obama is that I don't see the "change" (as in, someone who will attack the problems and provide real fixes, has a real vision and direction). He's vague. Lately, he has been trying to moderate himself on some of his stances. I don't know if that will help, or come to bite him in the butt.

I must of read your comments on Connecticut in another way. My apologizes.

Fortune put a lot of time into it, I must say.

Well, I don't mind that so much. He's trying to get elected. If he is too radical he's going to upset a lot of people. From what I read I think already he is considered pretty radical by some, fairly or not.

Either he gets elected and then starts to push for big changes, or he gets elected and, well, does what every other president does.

As for McCain, he gets elected and he does exactly what every other president does, and that's another reason why I think he wins.

So, I'm on some other website...sbnation, I think. I see this ad that has a picture of Ahmadinejad and a picture of Obama. Below it is the question "Do you think our president meeting with anti-American leaders?"

Then, below that, it says "Paid for by McCain 2008"

First of all, nice job playing into the "Obama is a terrorist" idiocy that some people actually fall for (I actually heard a girl I work with mention that Obama, if elected, would be sworn in on the Koran..this was like a week ago). Also, what the hell is wrong with meeting with enemies? Do enemies become non-enemies if we just ignore them?

What the fug is wrong with politics? It's so morally bankrupt that I don't even care anymore. I find it hard to be motivated to even vote at all. I'm 24...I don't have any money. What does it matter who I vote for?

Look at it like this; whoever wins, you're going to be hearing an awful lot from them over the next 4 or more years. With that in mind, pick the guy you'd rather listen to rattle off buzz words about, to quote JIMGA, "mediocrity, surrender, appeasement of your enemies", etc.

Who do you think will look and sound more honest when rattling off meaningless rhetoric during his State of the Union address?

These are the crucial areas that your vote can directly influence!

To me, it was more a campaign about weariness, than about changing direction. Reagan/Bush had lasted 12 years and the quick recession during Bush's term gave people enough of an excuse to vote for the other guy (Clinton or Perot, depending). Both Clinton and Perot hammered on that specific issue (both famously, by the way) and Bush never gave that much of an effort to fight back.

I remember that specifically about that campaign - it seemed to me that along the way Bush just gave up. By the time of the Convention, when he got saddled with a very right-wing platform, he just seemed defeated, personally.

Then in 2000, it happened again - people just got weary of the incumbent, and Gore couldn't do enough to get people fired up.

In this year, I don't think people are as much weary as they are scared and angry. Bush's approval ratings are the lowest in history. Eighty percent of the country thinks we're going in the wrong direction. People want to go in a different direction, and Obama's tapping into that.

I think you'll find the best parallels, Bucc, if you look at the generational aspect. Clinton got a big boost from Boomers who wanted to vote for a member of their cohort. That, as much as anything, was the "change" in that campaign. After 12 years of cloak-and-dagger administrations and increasingly awkward and uninspiring leaders (both Reagan and Bush went downhill in office), Clinton was definitely a breath of fresh air (at least, once he learned to give a speech - anyone remember how he bombed at the 1988 convention?).

Likewise, although Obama may not technically be a member of Generation X (on the cusp?) or Y (definitely not), he's getting a boost from being nowhere near as old as McCain.

I'd agree with you on the first Bush as he appeared to ride Reagan's coattails, but I couldn't disagree more with your assessment that Reagan was an awkward and uninspiring leader. I remember as early as the Carter administration and Reagan was my favorite president by far. It's not even close.

I'd agree with that -- didn't Bush call Clinton and Gore fools, or clowns, or something stupid like that, about a week before the election? Seemed low-brow to me.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/...on-center.html


I'm not saying that McCain will lose. But I don't agree with his continuing to move rightward after the primaries. Give lipservice to the 30% of the country that approves of Bush, but move to the center.

Those 30% are going to vote for you anyway. I know the argument that they may just choose not to vote. But I don't agree in this case. Anyone left on the GWB bandwagon is a diehard partisan. They are coming out to vote. They may threaten not to. But that is a bluff. They care too much. Why else would they still be sticking to the most unpopular president in history? At this point, it takes a bit of energy and interest to stick with Bush--not just knee-jerk partisan inertia. And people with energy and interest come out to vote.

Please note that I said became "increasingly awkward and inspiring" and applied that to the full 12 years of Reagan and Bush.

The shine was starting to come off of Reagan by 1987 what with Iran-Contra and (in hindsight) his illness and infirmity.

Bush had to go far, far right to handle the Pat Buchanan challenge. I remember one story Mary Matalin wrote about Buchanan's speech at the convention, which was filled with alot of extreme social rhetoric. One of her friends turned to her and said, "We just lost the election."



I don't agree with this. In 2000, Clinton had very high approval ratings. Gore's biggest mistake (among many) was his decision to distance himself from the incumbent, which made it hard for him to take credit for a strong economic situation. Utilizing Clinton more could have delivered him a southern state, which would have been enough to win the election.


The thing that worked so wellf or Clinton is that he had an extremely likeable personality, but he was also very intelligent. Clinton could fit in at the neighborhood BBQ, or at a foreign summit. The 2000 and 2004 elections saw candidates with one of those two qualities, but none had both. This year, McCain has the intelligent quality, but a Gallup poll has Obama with a 58-23 lead in likeability. If Obama can convince people that he's competent, then he should have an easy time in November.

Hold on a minute. Putting on my idealist hat, both the right and the left actually want the same thing and that is to make the country a better place. Both the right and left are equally humanistic, they just go about it in different ways. (For the record, as I have gotten older, both the right and left want power and use their different platforms as a method to gain that power.)

Let's take the old story about fishing. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach the man how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. The left follows the first path, the right believes in the second path. The left will argue that they truly believe in teaching, but their actions are far more along the lines of giving.

Let's look at children for a minute. Children understand how to manipulate their parents. They know how to get what they want, and they will play upon their parents' emotions to do so. They will ask, threaten, cajole, divide and conquer the parents, etc. All this to get what they want. The same thing happens when you offer to give someone a handout.

Case in point, I was in Clarksdale, MS, and stopped at a Mc Donald's to grab a bite to eat. I had $7 in cash, just enough to get my #5 value meal. Some guy comes up to me and hits me up for money for food. I offer instead to buy the guy a 2 cheeseburger meal. The guy accepts. I go in buy a smaller meal for myself, and buy this guy the 2 cheeseburger meal. The guy then asks if I will buy him something else for later. Plus, he starts complaining about the cheeseburgers and would prefer chicken. I tell him that is what he is getting and good day.

All I accomplished in doing this "good" deed was get pissed off since this guy kept asking for more. But, that is what happens when you give a guy something to eat for a day. It would have taken a great deal more time and effort on my part to teach this person anything useful. Although, in the long run, it would be more effective to do so. What is the more humanistic thing to do in this situation, and what would be best for this gentleman that I "helped"?

And a anti-welfare individual was born. :D

I've had a similar thing happen, but slightly different. Guy approached me asking for money for food and I stated I wouldn't give him the money but I'd be happy to bring him out some food from the fast food place I was entering. He bitched about it, so I told him he wasn't getting it. After work, I drove by the intersection and the guy was sitting on the corner with a vodka bottle. Guess I know where my money would have ended up.

Or the bunny ranch. What a country!

On the other hand, the right will give the rhetoric about teaching the man to fish, but will cut the teaching budget to pay for tax cuts, so no one is able to teach the man to fish ;).

I disagree with this analogy completely. I'd argue that the right is arguing that it's not the government's job to show you how to fish, while the left wants to give you some fish while you are learning how to catch your own.