Well, after his tour, it looks like he's solidified upwards of 70% of the vote in the socialist leaning European countries, but unfortunately they won't be able to cast absentee ballots for him in November, so I guess we'll see how that translates to votes here in America.

Yes, if you asked McCain to explain the difference, and especially further to explain how it influences politics throughout the greater region (for instance, is Hamas a Sunni or Shiite organization), I don't think he'd really know. He just doesn't give the impression that he'd know (see below).


A practical effect of confusion over basic facts leads to things like going to war over false pretences.

Anyway, go find the Sunni/Shiite clip. After Lieberman corrects him, McCain says "Oh yeah", pretty off-hand, as if he really doesn't care that he's gotten it wrong.

If we were talking about the Tutsis and Hutus than maybe it wouldn't be a big deal. But this is supposedly one of the centerpieces of his campaign, and is central to probably the #1 foreign policy issue the next President will face. I'd expect him (and Obama) to understand it very, very clearly.

Maybe we'll see more in the debates (Hah!).

At least that's better than the GOP events, where people in their 60s come and drink heavily at the event, and then drive drunk back to their McMansions. :rolleyes:

Seriously, what was the point of that statement?


Here you're finally on the money. The turnout of Obama's youthful supporters (or lack thereof) will be a big determining factor on election day.


Hah! :D

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think the point of Obama's trip was to get the votes of non-Americans.

Just that they definitely weren't there for Obama. Bragging about the huge crowds is kind of funny to me when that's the audience. They vaguely know they're anti-Bush because that's what they hear in popular culture, but they couldn't tell you where Obama's from.

It's super-cynical - but I know these people. Maybe he inspired a voter or two in the crowd though, who knows.

Which would put him in step with the majority of voters.

It really isn't good press, imo. I mean, the people who love Obama will love him no matter what he does, but I think the people hen eeds to win over are mostly scratching their heads trying to figure out what Germany has to do with the price of gas.

I had never thought McCain had much of a shot at WI.

And, flere, look: You're just going to have to accept that Iraq and Afghanistan do, in fact, share a border.

I was more referring to your previous comments about Madison. ;)


A border for me to POOP ON!

John McCain on why a Presidential candidate might go abroad to give a speech:

You know, I was thinking, if Obama wants the good press of massive crowds and looking Presidential... why even give the convention acceptance speech in Denver? Hell, have it in Wembley Stadium over in the UK. That's a bigger venue after all.

From another thread:

It's silly, but that seems to be the real selling point from Obama's supporters. You don't hear about what he's going to do as president, they just point out the number of Germans he can draw.

Yep... so are the reasons for Obama to give his speech at a stadium instead of a convention center where the rest of his party is at.

There's zero reason for him to move to a stadium except:

1. Ego
2. Perpetuate this Rock Star Image

#2 is working really, really well for him, so I guess I can't blame him.

Hey now. I'm no fan of Obama, but I don't find the Obama = egomaniac thing to be compelling.

What about:

3. So more people can attend, have access to what should be a historic event, and more $$ for the party.

Apparently there's no charge for the event itself - you just have to prove your loyalty to the cult or something:

The Price to Attend Obamas Speech in Denver - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

Maybe it's just because I've never seen the "rock star" presidential candidate. But this guy scares me. It's like he's running for Emperor. The New Obama Order.

LOL. Yeah, it sucks that people are excited about an election. Everyone always complains that young people don't vote, when they finally get excited behind a candidate they are goofy cult followers. If you can fill an 80,000 seat stadium, what's the benefit in holding it in an arena that holds maybe 20,000?

Anywho, have fun making up other people's intentions and posting silly things about how his campaign is so proud of the amount of Germans he can draw. You are just right I guess. It would suck to want to fight a war on terror and actually have a leader that other countries want to support and seem excited about...

I'm not making up other people's intentions at all. For months I've heard about Obama's crowds. But why should I vote for him? Because Germany's excited? Becaue he might get young people to vote? What are they voting for? Excitement? All the good he did in Chicago's inner cities?

I'm just responding to people pointing to the crowds like a scorecard: Obama: 100,000, McCain: 6. People are making the case for Obama by telling you that other people like him. It's a cycle devoid of substance and fueled by nothing more than momentum.

I can't be the only one picking up the vibe of creepiness. Perhaps "Obama loyalty points" will be our currency soon (That's an COMPLETE exageration).

And like I said, maybe this is just because I've never seen a presidential candidate with this kind of following and that it's actually a good thing. Maybe I'm that cynical. I don't see how it translates in any way to an effective presidency, but I'd love to be proven wrong. How long do I have to wait after he's elected for everything to be all better?

(I see the problem here: we forgot to make molson drink the Kool-Aid.)

"Hey molson! Come over here, we've got some, er, tasty stuff for you to drink!"

:D

I actually am kind of thirsty....

I'm not an Obama supporter (didn't vote for him in the primary) but I acknowledge the fact that we need to get younger people excited about politics in this country. I'm in my 30s, my views differ from lots of people in their 60s and 70s, especially here in the A, so I'm happy that people in my generation are actually getting more into politics.

As for the foreign aspect of it, if you can't see why getting our allies excited about our leader is important, maybe we should take a look at the percentage of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are American and if there's a way we can get other countries involved. Amazing how quick the "coalition of the willing" became the coalition of the devoid. If him touring Europe trying to gain back support of our allies, who clearly have moved away from us, is bad, I don't really know what else to say.

There's definitely some value in it - I'm not one of these people who says, "who cares what the rest of the world thinks". But I guess I'd rather see him do it as a president than as some sort of campaign strategy to show us what a big deal he is (just my impression of it). He's tapping into SOMETHING there as a candidate, that I just think is superficial.

If he gets huge adoring 200,000+ crowds in foreign countries as president (outside of the honeymoon period) - then I'll be impressed.

It would be worth more than our dollar too.

Can we add a corollary to Godwin that says if you call Obama, Messiah, you lose the argument?

I don't either but he is running as rock star, hoping that'll translate to better turnout in the election. It appears the polls, for what they're worth, still show it to be very close despite one candidate that can draw 200,000, while they other draws 6.

A gaffe for Obama on his European rock tour?

http://news.aol.com/political-machin...282x1200328977

One casualty of Sen. Barack Obama's busy schedule on his foreign trip was a planned visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a U.S. military hospital located at the U.S. air base in Ramstein, Germany. The cancellation left Obama with a gap in his official schedule this morning in Berlin before he boarded a plane to fly to Paris for a five-hour stop over en route to London. Obama was to visit with troops receiving treatment for wounds inflicted in Iraq and Afghanistan at Landstuhl. Now, the cancellation, and the Obama campaign's shifting explanations for it, are raising questions.

Obama adviser Robert Gibbs initially said that the visit was canceled because the campaign thought, "it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign." That remark drew sharp criticism from Sen. John McCain, who said, "Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military." The McCain campaign also pointed out the Sen. McCain paid a visit to wounded troops on his last trip to Iraq. In response to increased questioning on the cancellation from the press, and perhaps to Sen. McCain's criticism, the Obama campaign later said that it was the military that requested that Obama not make the trip to the base. "We learned from the Pentagon last night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event," a campaign adviser said.

But the military is disputing that explanation. A spokesman for the base told NBC News that the base was prepared to host Sen. Obama, as long as some conditions were met.

"[H]e could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers. Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit.

We didn't know why [the trip was canceled]. He was more than welcome. We were all ready for him."


Obama's campaign has steadfastly refuted the characterization of his trip as political. But the campaign's original explanation for removing the military hospital stop was based on the perception that the visit would be viewed as political. This is a pretty serious mistake by the campaign. The controversy will have no impact on the leaders and crowds Obama will encounter on the remainder of his trip. But it will resonate in the United States, and especially among those whom the trip was intended to convince that Sen. Obama had the experience to be the leader of the free world. Furthermore, the shifting explanations for the cancellation will cause the press to be more skeptical of the campaign's statements. That is something no candidate can afford, much less one who has enjoyed a largely uncritical relationship with the mainstream press.


He doesn't get the photo op he wants, so his campaign says "screw you." That'll play well with the troops. :lol:

There have been a handful of reports on the right-wing radio stations about Obama walking past lines of troops ready to greet him and shake hands while he marched to locations of carefully constructed photo opportunities. They also characterized the above report as Obama canceling his appearance when told that he couldn't be accompanied by the media.

This all had the right-wing slant on it, but it seems that Obama should know that he is always able to meet and talk to soldiers. He should also know that the military can't be involved in a campaign if they are never on camera. Seems like he is passing up easy goodwill with moves like this.

Not only that, but he blamed the military for not going.

Okay...this was pretty funny. :lol:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4392846.ece


He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

haha yes, yes it was. :thumbsup:

It's not so much pushing up as it is taking advantage. If he doesn't do it before the Olympics, it'll be competing with another huge news story. The Dems start their convention the day after the Olympics are over, and the GOP convention is the week after that.

It's actually a pretty logical time to do it. Considering the Dems are meeting sooner, I'm surprised we haven't heard more talk about an Obama announcement. Wonder if he'll try to wait til close to the convention?

There's no story here. The DoD said they didn't want Obama to stop with campaign staff. The same thing happened to McCain a while ago at a naval base.

dola

I expect Obama waits until the first day of the convention to announce the VP. It makes the first night suddenly an important event.

I can guarantee you'll enjoy this Kool-Aid.... :D


Nope.

You know, every time I do this, I get a sense of deja vu. Do you, in fact, ever post anything (political) that's supported by actual facts?

:p

McCain actually gave a pretty strong speech today.

Well gee, I've always wondered if you get paid for your work as a Spin Meister for the DNC?
:p

I don't know if it was noticed, but the one thing Obama asked Germany to do in his speech was to send more troops to Afghanistan. That one didn't get an applause and Merkel has already said its not happening. So while they may get excited about him... that may not exactly lead to them automatically getting involved in our wars.

Secondly, our European allies like John McCain and know that he respects our alliances and would never pull a Dubya and basically spit at them. So I don't think one or the other would have more support of our allies.

An interesting comment from Barack Obama while visiting the historically unpopular British Prime Minister:

"You're always more popular before you're actually in charge. Once you're responsible then you're going to make some people unhappy."

It's kind of the "backup QB" thing.

I don't think this has been posted yet. I thought it was an interesting (and accurate) take on the Gramm mess and the various other controversies we've seen this year.

http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/ar...mar-police.php

$300b Farm Bill. $300b Mortgage Bailout Bill. Cool, I can't wait to see what next year's Congress will do.

Obama was up 48-41 in yesterday's Gallup Poll and today he's up 49-40. Obama has gotten a lot of coverage for his overseas trip and it was mostly viewed as a success so it'll be interesting to see if the gap closes again now that his trip is over.

Rasmussen and Research 2000 are both showing post-trip bumps (like Gallup) of about 3-5%.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I swear McCain was a better campaigner in 2000. This is just painful to watch, especially since he's had a couple of weeks to formulate this answer.

I'm thinking the debates are going to turn this thing into a huge landslide.

For some reason, we're not hearing anything about the most recent Gallup Poll of likely voters.

I think this election will be VERY close. I still have no strong feeling about who will win, but barring disaster or serious misstep, I don't think we see a blowout by either side.

Why Is Obama Not Imroving In The Polls

I agree with this.

Probably so. We're at the end of July, and Obama is up by about 3 points in the average of all of the current polls. At this point in past election cycles, Dukakis had a 17 point lead over GHWB, and Jimmy Carter had a 33 point lead over Gerald Ford.

I don't know what to make of this poll. No crosstabs given. The numbers don't make too much sense...how is McCain up 4% among the 791 likely voters yet down 3 amongst the 900 registered voters.

hxxp://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/about-that-mccain-4.html

Also, kind of weird that Gallup is involved in this poll considering their tracking poll has Obama +8 today.

Yes, my reaction precisely. It's almost as if they're looking for a poll that is much closer - perhaps commercial interest in their polls drops when it begins to look like a foregone conclusion. I suspect that a higher proportion of party-dedicated voters, rather than the result-determining "swing voters", that makes up this "likely to vote" group and therefore produces a closer result.

Well, I just read about it today, but both fivethirtyeight.com and electoral-vote.com have commentary on it. I've stated before that I take all polling with a grain of salt, and this just reaffirms my thinking.


Oooo, go out on a limb there....


Why did you pick those two races in particular?

Link: AP: McCain backs off his no-new-tax pledge

Full Story:

Two questions. One, why does SS tax currently stop at $102,000? Two, if Obama is looking to add a tax on incomes above $250,000, why leave the hole between $102,000 and $250,000?

I think that Rasmussen Tracking is colluding with Gallup to make the race appear closer, as they have Obama leading by only 1 point today.

I'd like to know why people are still listening to McCain when, for example, he held a town hall meeting yesterday devoted to "argu[ing] in favor of lifting the ban on offshore drilling as a way to reduce high gas prices and give the ailing economy a boost" (Link). This is demonstratively a bald lie, as it will be many years, and probably decades, before any impact from offshore drilling would occur. He knows this. How can the country consider electing a man who is not only that out of touch with the energy situation, but chooses to lie about it?

dola...

By comparison, Obama spent Monday meeting with a group of financial and business experts including Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, billionaire investor Warren Buffett, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Google Inc. Chairman Eric Schmidt, and Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers (also from the article). Today he's meeting with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to further discuss the economy.

Come on, that is so one-sided it belies your intelligence. There is a lot of ways it can provide economics boosts in the short-term - much needed construction jobs in coastal communities, ramping up of employment in energy and supplies companies, plus the wave effect of housing, retail and services. If they lift the ban, you will see futures speculation go short, as all do when something new and dramatic takes effect. So this can be spinned as a bald lie or as a bald truth, depending how one wants to interpret/ignore all factors to make a political point.

Personally, I am against wide-spread opening up of new leases - Congress can make it is easier for the companies to use existing leases. This is one of many short-term (decade-long) solutions to bridge the gap towards an aggresive private and public effort towards alternatives to foreign oil.

Besides, if you want to play this "How can the country consider electing a man who is not only that out of touch" game, one can say that about any candidate and their proposed governmental solutions. Anyone who proposes tax increases, universal healthcare, extravagent farm, energy and mortgage bills without slashing federal spendings is so out of touch, it boggles the mind.

So reading posts, I am getting this thought: since Obama is running a non-traditional campaign, a campaign that appeals to a greater number of potential voters, he's not a viable candidate?

All of those things take a significant chunk of time that he's not alloting, though, Bucc. The reality of the situation is that even if they completely revise the process by which offshore drilling could open up, get the equipment and jobs and other things in place that could affect the economy, it won't be within any time frame that could be considered near. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. On a long enough timeline yes, those things can occur. But could any of them happen within a four-year presidential term?

How is that a non-traditional campaign? He's running a very traditional campaign, much like other new hope candidates like FDR, JFK, Carter, Reagan and Clinton had done. He's getting more coverage that they had because, well, there is a whole lot more coverage opportunities now.

That's a lot of Democrat voters he'd be fucking with there.

A mere decision to drill offshore, and certainly actions to that end, can itself impact oil prices and oil speculation.
(Look how the price is impacted by mere statements from OPEC)

I certainly don't agree with that as a policy matter, but calling someone a "liar" essentially because they disagree with you is a little much.

The most interesting thing to me in this thread (and I guess any political discussion), is when people make points when they obviously have already decided, 100%, that one candidate/issue is good or correct and the other is bad. Once someone has reached that level of total allegiance to a candidate or idea, their opinions become absolutely useless in a discussion, because it's 100% predictable how they feel about anything. ANY news about McCain, you'd spin as bad, and ANY news about Obama, you'd spin as good. So who do you think you're convincing?

I don't think it really matters - people want to hear solutions from politicians, placating the fears and paranoia that have been drummed into them. The actual benefits of solutions seem to come to a selected few, whether a special interest or a geographical group, but as long as politicians talk like they are "doing something" and lambast the opposition for "not doing something", the cycle will continue.

To me, the best solutions are those that Congress can do to not penalize things but instead, to promote things. In other words, don't penalize energy providers for staying within the EPA mandates but instead, promote entreprenuership in making environmental controls better.

I'm not sure why SS payroll tax stops at the first $102,000 of earnings. I would imagine, though, that this is because that's all that was felt necessary when it was started up.

On Obama's proposal, I think you might be conflating two different things. On his info sheet there isn't anything about $250,000. He says he'll expand the payroll tax past $102,000 and eliminate all taxes for all seniors who make under $50,000/year.

The $250,000 number might be coming from Obama's plan to roll back the Bush payroll tax cuts on those earning over $250,000/year.

Hope that helps.

That is what I figured. If this is the case and SS needs to be fixed (even though I still like the idea of being able to opt out...) wouldn't an obvious solution be to say that the $102,000 cap doesn't make sense anymore and raise it?


If two different things are conflated here, I blame it on really sloppy writing in the article above. Putting that statement in-between two different comments about SS tax was confusing if the $250,000 wasn't related.

The reason he said it is obvious. From the Washington Post:


Further confirmation that there is no position McCain won't reverse if he thinks it'll help him win this election.

I've generally thought so. Of course, bear in mind that a) you can't suggest this kind of thing if you're a Republican candidate and b) it may actually take more than this to keep SS solvent for the long term (I haven't run the numbers).


Yep.

I'd be interested to know what those who believe what he's saying feel would be the specific impact on oil prices/speculation if he convinced Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling (remember, President Bush already lifted the executive order prohibiting it, so McCain wouldn't have that particular tool in his toolbox).

According to the numbers McCain has stated, we have untapped offshore reserves of approximately 21 billion barrels -- that amounts to about two and a half years worth of recoverable oil, not counting the energy that will go into recovering them (all of those jobs and infrastructure previously mentioned). As I've said before: do the research, and the math, yourself if you think it will come out to a more significant impact. But to state that I'm only irritated at his position because I'm '100% against McCain' as molson states is to miss the point. Speaking of which...



I would argue that your statement does not show a thorough understanding of the issue. I'd be happy to consider any evidence you might supply to back it up.

And since you brought it up:

You're overstating my "allegiance to a candidate or an idea", and I'd challenge you to point out what must be a large number of posts that have convinced you I feel that way. What news about McCain have I spun as bad? What news about Obama have I spun as good? Look at the posts, ask yourself whether they accurately reflect reality, and then decide. But this idea that because I'm clearly irritated about McCain's position on oil drilling it means that the arguments I'm making have no value is a logically fallacious view. Rather, they are a reflection of my consideration of energy issues and my analysis of McCain's position as unsupportable, as first outlined in this thread.

Casting me as an extremist is not supported by the arguments I've made, and happily the fact that this board archives everything means that I don't even have to hope you believe me -- you can check for yourself. But I will say that you are wrong in stating that I'd spin all news bad or good depending on the candidate. I agree or disagree with news based on my own analysis of the information, not because of whichever suit is on TV spouting it.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the Race is Tied

Obama:

• After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn't mean it.

• From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers -- but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

All politicians do it, I think it's necessary to get this far in an presidential election.

Is there anything you don't like Obama, or like about McCain? Did you agree with Obama's FISA vote?

Does anyone have state-by-state polling? These stupid polls mean nothing without the context of the states. It is the only polling that would give a decent picture.

Both of you suggest that speculation is a big part of the problem. I'm going to assume that you both agree that more drilling is unlikely to affect supply-and-demand in the short term. Further, as we've discussed elsewhere, the current runup in oil prices doesn't seem to match supply-and-demand dynamics.

So, if you want a short-term solution (and to discuss long-term solutions elsewhere) the obvious answer to me would seem to be to repeal the expansion of oil speculation passed by the GOP in 2001 (when they controlled Congress) which expanded the group of people/corporations allowed to purchase oil futures. In the intervening years, the percentage of futures owned by these "speculators" (i.e., people who do not intend to actually use the futures), has risen from 30% to 70%.


No, McCain's promise of a near-term "boost to the economy" is flatly a lie along these lines. For one, it'll take a long while for these jobs to filter into the infrastructure, if they do at all. For two, this assumes that oil companies will actually drill on the new leases they'll get. Given they don't drill on a huge amount of leases they currently own, that doesn't seem very likely.

Bottom-line: there is absolutely no way this gives a "boost" to the economy in 2008 or 2009 as McCain is suggesting and any reasonable economist understands that.


Like what, drilling for them? Presumably you mean removing more of the environmental regulations the oil companies claim slow them down from doing exploratory drilling. But removing these regulations has a long-term impact, so where do you want to suffer? Besides, playing the regulations legal game should be something that a) the oil companies are now well-versed in and b) have the legal and financial resources to do.


Look, McCain's the one who can't talk about the cost of milk, at a grocery store, without reading off an index card. :D

Seriously, though, I know you don't like either candidate Bucc, but bear in mind that the money Obama's planning to spend on all of his programs pales in comparison to the money McCain is preparing to spend on one initiative alone: Iraq.

Obama's asking people earning a lot of money ($250,000 and up) to cough up as much as they were in 2000 (so, a little more) to help rebuild the country. McCain's asking people to not notice the continued deficit spending he wants to rebuild another country.

And to hopefully make the point a bit clearer:

Link: NPR: Candidates Clash On Impact Of Offshore Drilling

Excerpted Text:

fivethirtyeight.com does full composites. electoral-vote.com has individual pages of polling for each state.

It's too bad that both candidates are going to be in a position to pander to Americans that just want the promise of cheaper gas prices now. There are no real short term fixes, and I don't think either candidate is bold enough to do what we really need to do to get off of foreign (or at least mideast) oil....So the world is just sentenced to do it the hard way instead.

It seems to me that you're the one who has made up his mind 100%.

McCain's energy position

Obama's energy position

My views change all the time as I learn and read more. I actually changed my mind over the Gitmo torture ruling over the course of that thread. I certainly won't conform my views to identically match those of any individual candidate, as many seem to have done with Obama.

At the end of the day, though, there are two people in the world who can still be elected president. Our job as citizens is to choose the one who supports positions we feel reflect a vision for strengthening America. I wouldn't argue that anyone has to conform their views to match either candidate identically -- rather, I would say that we have to choose which one has the vision for the future of this country that reflects what we want America to be, and to consider whether that candidate's plans are realistic in moving towards that goal.

That's one thing, and it's an important thing. But supporting a "vision" only goes so far. I know what visions both support. But what will actually happen with an Obama or McCain in the White House? That's a much more difficult question to answer.

And yes, I realize there are a substantial amount of folks who support third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates. None of them will be president, but supporting them may help promote visions for the country which are underrepresented.

At the very least, supporting a vision goes as far as the voting booth, and there are only two people on it who will be able to give enacting that vision a shot. One might also argue that it should extend into doing the kind of work throughout the years (not just in election ones) that will enact the vision.

But aren't both candidates going to be spending a great deal of money - on top of the budget - for resources in the Middle East between 2009 and 2012? I am not convinced that foreign aid to the Middle East, including Iraq, will go down significantly no matter who's President or in Congress. Even though I suspect that priorities will change, there will be too much pressure not to make things even worse than they are now.

Even if one were to "free up" significant expenditures, it is not available to spend elsewhere.

Or to give a voice to what the traditional parties can and should do differently. So far, both are heavily touting the "same tired rhetoric" :) of their party lines.

....then there is Congress. ;)

True enough. I wonder which candidate will be most effective in working with Congress to enact his vision? Clinton did a suprisingly effective job given his non-experience. With it being a Democratic Congress (as well as a number of other factors including temperment, ability to unite, etc.), my sense is that Obama would be more effective.

Common sense. I can't see how anyone can argue with this.


Yep, I didn't like this.


"Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control" is a mischaracterization of his lifetime stance on gun control which has been marked, again, by common sense. Also, "he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms" is also a mischaracterization of his stance on gun control. Obama's always supported the 2nd amendment, and his view on the need for, and effectiveness of, various types of gun bans, has evolved over the course of the past 15-20 years.


Again, Morris is torturing the semantics of Obama's own statements to make a false point here. Having said that, it would have been better if he had said little to nothing about the issue. He's on record as saying he doesn't want a wall to go up through the middle of Jerusalem, but he got carried away in his rhetoric to the Israel lobby. Big deal.


Incorrect, his abortion position has been consistent. Many pro-choice advocates (note "pro-choice", not "pro-abortion") oppose 3rd-trimester abortions. Further, Obama has only agreed to look at legislation like this where there is a clear and unambiguous provision regarding the health of the mother.


"For the first time"? Pure, unmitigated BS.


He's always consistently said the President consults the military on tactics, and then makes the strategic decision which becomes the military's job to implement. Obviously I'd like us out of Iraq immediately, but I understand the logistics involved.


Uh, wow. This is simply flat-out wrong. Before the NEA Obama talked about merit pay and still supports it. Even a cursory google shows that. Frankly, this puts the rest of Morris' article in serious doubt.


Yeah, this isn't true either. At least, I can't find anything approaching a cite here. Morris doesn't offer a cite either, so I'm going to assume this is more hackery.


I liked McCain in 2000. I wouldn't have voted for him over Gore or Bradley, but that's just because we diverge on too many issues.

Definitely, and Obama seems to be slowly coming to this realization.

Obviously I agree with a lot of Obama's positions. It's part of the reason I'm excited about him as a candidate. And I haven't conformed my positions to match his. Why would I do that?

What I really like, however, is Obama's approach. He's a thoughtful guy who surrounds himself with experts who possess differing opinions and seriously tries to make sure that every decision, proposal, or program is well thought-out and challenged prior to implementation and that measurable success factors exist for these. That's a level of reasonableness and accountability I like to see in any leader, especially one who's spending my money.

And there lies the crux of the issue (for me). I am less concerned with Congress approving some of Obama's "vision" than I am Obama signing off on Congress' "visions".

So...you would prefer to elect a president that will be unable to work with Congress?

Yes. Or a President with the balls to veto (and not be overridden). Or a libertarian-minded Congress.

Of those three, unfortunately the most realistic option is the first one. The massively wasteful bills such as the farm, energy and mortgage bills will be small potatoes compared to a friendly Legislature/Executive. It would be on par with the disaster from the Rep Congress/Executive of the early-mid 2000s (war fundings, homeland security bills, etc.).

Just for you, Bucc:


BTW, that's George Washington, not Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. :P

That's cool, Cam. The Spirit of Revenge is still strong, as we saw with Reagan undoing Carter, Clinton undoing Reagan/Bush and Bush2 undoing Clinton. At least now it's all name calling and spiteful rhetoric. Back then, people actually got maimed or killed for being the opposition.

I actually don't have much of a problem with "undoing" things, it's adding on that I don't like. That and the incessant opposition for opposition's sake, in framing things that you are either for us or against us, or red or blue.

In many ways, I'd rather see a system every time where the president and congress are from opposing parties. Make sure nothing gets done unless it really needs to be done.

This would be awesome. Sadly, it almost never actually happens.

When people ask me who I want to be president, I respond with the same response I had from the Superbowl: I hope they both lose.

I know he's been in the Senate for 3 1/2 years, but I wasn't aware of the experts that he's surrounded himself with during that time to help him with his decision making process.

Look at his economic panel yesterday that included two Bush appointees. Look at his record in Illinois working with the opposition. Look at his time on the Harvard Law Review where conservatives praised his leadership. Whether or not you agree with him, it's impossible to say he doesn't listen to opposing viewpoints.

Experience in the Senate is the only way to work with the opposition.

The new polls:


Commentary:

California: No surprise here, except that anyone thought CA was ever in play.

Florida & Ohio: Statistical ties, which I think will remain the same until November.

Idaho, Kentucky & Texas: No surprises here.

Montana: We now have multiple polls showing that Montana's in play, so I think we have to assume that it's in play. Which is crazy.

Pennsylvania: Obama pulling away, still potential for McCain here.


The promotion of Rove disciple Steve Schmidt has borne fruit this week with the beginning of truly negative ads from the McCain campaign. We'll see if they work - they usually do.

Despite this, I expect a bit of a mid-summer lull (barring VP announcements) until the conventions.