Heh, gotta love articles without a single attributed source. :D

Wolfson, Davis or Penn?

dola


Chaffee's no surprise, but I didn't see Leach endorsing Obama.

I'm not an actor, but here's my advice to both candidates.

Obama: Don't associate with celebrities.
McCain: Don't talk about your naps or Wheel of Fortune

Normally, I'd agree. But this information shouldn't be surprising to most people that have followed the Obama campaign. The relationship described in this article fits perfectly with what we know about Clooney's fundraiser for Obama that's being held in Europe. It's long been known that Clooney is hosting that fundraiser overseas in the hopes that it won't draw the Hollywood relationship attention that Clooney is trying to avoid at all costs. If Clooney were smart, he'd back off in a big hurry to avoid any collateral damage to Obama.

Do you think it's not true? As an Obama supporter, do you want him anywhere NEAR Oprah or Clooney?

Leach voted against the Iraq war and he was for campaign finance reform. He still went down in '06 with the other Republicans and I was surprised that he lost.

The article paints a picture, with unattributed quotes, of Clooney acting as one of Obama's closest advisors on a very wide range of topics, including foreign policy.

I find that pretty hard to believe.

There's no doubt that Clooney is supporting Obama and they may well be friends. The implication, however, that Clooney is directing much of Obama's foreign policy is ridiculous. There's just enough truth in the article, but the overall message is still dubious at best.

I didn't read it making that bold a statement that he was actually "directing" foreign policy, but even if that's a perception, Obama has to distance himself from it as much as possible. Hollywood's involvement was a net loss for Kerry in '04.

It's also clearly a guy that isn't a supporter of Obama. The "first black President" quote, in that context, would never come from someone supporting Obama. This is a story driven by someone with an ax to grind who isn't brave enough to put his name to his quotes. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of his claims.

I feel confident that the Obama campaign can utilize the support of the Hollywood set far more effectively than what was quite possibly the most anemic Democratic presidential campaign since the 1980s.

The conservative base is likely hoping that Obama has the same belief as you. There's nothing that could screw up an otherwise solid campaign quicker than a Hollywood intervention in any form. It just doesn't make any sense to go down that path when you don't even need to do so.

lol, seriously?

Well, inasmuch as I think the Obama campaign can do anything more effectively than Kerry's disasterous 2004 campaign.

LOL......that's like saying that McCain will be a more effective president that George W. Bush. It's probably true, but is that really saying all that much?

That was kinda my point.

If someone wants to say "Hollywood's involvement was a net loss for Kerry in '04" then basically my response is that given how poorly Kerry did in pretty much every aspect of that campaign, I'm sure Obama's campaign can handle this particular aspect better than Kerry's.

It's not as funny when I have to explain the joke, though. ;)

I know, I know. I'm a blatant partisan yadda yadda. I still stand by this statement:

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine appears to be a colossal tool. This is what he had to say on Fox today.


A) There is no ceasefire currently in place, despite what Medvedev might say.

B) Does anybody really think that Obama or McCain's statements are making an iota of difference in how the Russians are reacting? To try and claim that his Obamaness was able to achieve a ceasefire just by asking for it is eye-rollingly stupid.

I actually had requested a ceasefire before Obama did.

It's stupid, but certainly no more stupid than McCain supporters that have written the Russians attacked because they knew Obama was an appeaser.

I haven't seen that, but you're right... that's awfully dumb. Has anyone the level of Tim Kaine said something like that?

The funny part is that I'm not necessarily sure that he can. I'm sure Obama would do fine on his end, but I'd never limit the ability of the Hollywood crew to screw up a candidate's chances. As mentioned before, the quicker the Democrats figure out that Hollywood is not an ally that they want on their side, the quicker they can start beating average Republican candidates in landslide numbers rather than just squeaking by or losing in the case of the last election.

So, now that all doubt has been removed as to who the leading Obama VP candidate is..........

Hannity with the pitch, Colmes with the swing...

Wowzzorz - Alan Colmes growing a pair of balls and standing up Hannity? Whodathunkit x 2

The Obama camp seems to think McCain is just as influential:

McCain too bellicose on Georgia? - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

"Democratic rival Barack Obama has been more measured, and on Tuesday night, his chief foreign policy adviser suggested that McCain had made the situation on the ground worse.

"Barack Obama, the administration and the NATO allies took a measured, reasoned approach," Obama adviser Susan Rice said on MSNBC. "We were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip, very aggressive, belligerent statement. He may or may not have complicated the situation."

Wait until Obama's close ties with EA Sports come out...

I do remember that not so long ago it was near criminal for Obama to take a public stand that was in contrast to the administration's foreign policy.

Wow. That almost never happens. What did he drink before going on the show? You can almost see Hannity is amused by it. I do love how they're dismissing McCain's affair as "a long time and it's been vetted..." as if that has anything to do with the question.

And while I don't think any of this stuff is germane to much of anything, that clip was...funny.

It appears Saakashvili is listening to McCain. Having McCain's top foreign policy advisor on the payroll helps.

More proof that Republicans are hypocrites. For a party that is suppose to be about values they really have none.

but NOOP that was so long ago, the values are different and the vetting is different. Edwards cheated on his wife while she was fighting Cancer!! For crying out loud, I mean, had he cheated on her say, while she was critically laid up in the hospital after a horrific car accident we could all understand. Or say he was mentally unstable because he spent 5 and 1 half years being beaten - hanitty, then we could all understand it! Thank god the benchmark is the same for everyone, whooo........trust us, this has been thoroughly vetted, i mean deeply vetted....it's vetted. Edwards has not been vetted!

Let's not judge an entire political philosophy simply because of a few misguided individuals. Goes for both sides.

Sorry I disagree. In principal the Republican ideals are very good ideas, in practice it is the opposite. They pander to the right for votes but cater to the rich once in power.

Of course, Republicans would say the same thing about Democratic economic ideas.

If only there were a party that made practical sense all around......

I am in favor of a new party for moderates myself.

:rolleyes:

Well Saakashvili is hoping McCain wins so he may get more backing. Makes sense for him to half praise him.

McCain's sent Graham and Lieberman to Georgia and is saying he speaks for all Americans. It's a bit presumptuous if you ask me.

Just a tad.

Really an interesting/important time in the world right this second with the Russians, Iran, Iraq, the election.

Bill Kristol is wrong about almost everything, so I don't know if I believe this. It would be a big endorsement, if true.

According to The Politico the Clooney story is more bullshit than any of us thought.

I'm surprised this wasn't posted yet. The upward trend for McCain's campaign continues. The Electoral Vote website ( Electoral-vote.com: President, Senate, House Updated Daily ) now has McCain with slight leads in Nevada, Colorado, and Ohio. In addition, Minnesota and Indiana have been moved from solid Obama to slight Obama leans. Only good change for Obama was that Virginia was moved back to a tie rather than a slight McCain lean.

It's shocking to me to see how similar the polling trends are to the 2004 election. Obama really needs to make a good impact at the convention and pick a great VP to get his numbers moving back in the right direction.

As has been explained above, Electoral Vote just takes the most recent poll and gives the state to the leader. For any number of reasons this doesn't produce a very predictive map. I'd also note that even with the changes Obama is credited with 275 EV.

Pollster.com is much better in that it averages out a number of recent polls. It has the same states as battlegrounds, but instead of giving it to one or the other over one poll, it gives a much clearer picture of where the race may stand.

If you dig into the trend lines at Pollster you'll find that things have been pretty stable for a few weeks now. It appears that for all the money they're both spending, most people aren't paying attention.

For those who might be interested, I did a little research on the most reliable and least reliable bellweather states to watch in the upcoming election. I included all elections since 1912 (the first year there was 48 states). Below are the top 5 and bottom 5 with their percentage accuracy of voting for the winner.


Looking at the bellweather state polls on the various sites provides an interesting perspective at this point.

--Electoral-vote.com has McCain leading in 4 of the 5 top bellweather states (Obama leads in only New Mexico).

--Fivethirtyeight.com has McCain leading in Missouri, Nevada, and Tennesse. Obama leads in New Mexico. Ohio is listed as a toss-up.

--Pollster.com has McCain leading in Tennesse. Obama leads in Ohio and New Mexico. Nevada and Missouri are listed as toss-ups.

So, if we combine the results at this point for these 5 states over the three polling sites, McCain leads in eight states, Obama leads in four states, and three states are considered toss-ups.

Correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

Hawaii was certainly a poor bellweather state in 1912. We now have 50 states, so you may want to look at the 1960 elections onwards.

Alternately, Fighter of Foo is on the money.

To be fair, four of those states are key battleground states. The one that's ridiculous is Tennessee. I don't care how accurate it's been since 1912, it certainly isn't a bellwether state this year. If you take Tennessee out, then McCain's lead across the three polls shrinks to 5-4.

Of course, but correlation at least raises the possibility of a prediction tool (which is different than causation).

Certainly. My point wasn't to say that McCain is somehow ahead. It's just a good measuring stick to see how things progress.

I do think your point about Tennessee not being a bellweather state is a bit faulty. It doesn't have to be a battleground state to be a bellweather state. A bellweather state is a state which usually supports the winner. Also, Tennessee proved to be an extremely accurate bellweather state in the 2000 election when they voted 51-47 in favor of Bush and against Al Gore, the home-state candidate. Bellweather states usually have a good mix of races and urban/rural population that mirrors the overall U.S. Tennessee's last miss was in 1924. That's a pretty impressive track record.

Hawaii and Alaska's percentage was done by dividing by only 12 elections rather than 24 elections, so the percentage is accurate. I don't think many would argue against Hawaii being a bad bellweather state. It's generally voted Democrat in every election except for the Reagan/Bush 1 years along with one Nixon vote. It's a relatively partisan state.

Also, the District of Columbia has participated in only 11 elections, but it's much like Hawaii in that it's a very partisan voting district.

John McCain on the Corsi book:

Link: Joe Klein on McCain's campaign


Link: The Obama campaign's response to the Corsi book: a 41-page point-by-point rebuttal to 'inaccuracies'

pretty crushing point by point repudiation of Corsi's book BUT will anyone pay attention to the truths or will they pay more attention to the controversy it creates. For shame, that McCain, who suffered the indignities of the campaign vs. Rove and the smear machine, that he would tacitly support the book and the crap within.

I love how much stuff happens under the radar that's critical to the race. Yesterday McCain said that he's in favor of reopening the Colorado River compact and folks in Colorado are pissed. Both Senators(one Dem, one Rep) issued angry statements and multiple Colorado newspapers ran with it as the lead editorial. Any Colorado folks hear this? Is it a gaffe that could cost McCain CO?

Was just reading about this.

I'd like to hear from Bucc and others that live in the "upper basin" states to see how they think this will play. I have seen a few articles that indicate that McCain may have just delivered New Mexico and Colorado (and put Wyoming into the "toss-up" category) to Obama.

It is pretty hard for folks from other regions to understand how important local issues can be when they are so foreign to many. The water issue is pretty foreign to me, so it will be interesting to hear some perspective from locals to see if this is just blown up by the media or a legitimate issue.

Anybody else watching the Saddleback Forum? I've generally been impressed with both men, but I really wish Warren would ask followups. There have been a lot of answers that could be challenged.

Kudos to Warren for having the balls to set this up and appear as a kingmaker.

edit: That's as sharp as I've seen McCain since the primaries ended.

McCain is answers seems very rehearsed and just rehashing his campaign instead of thoughtfully answering the questions. I mean I understand you were a POW, but why did every story have to revolve around that? Obama seemed to be giving more genuine answers.

I have decided to vote RICK WARREN for President.

Though reading on wikipedia, it seems its a shame, because the compact NEEDS to be renegotiated. It appears that it was signed during an era of abnormally high rainfall and thus the split of water is not where it should be for normal patterns.

Seems that way. Looks like maybe they are using the wrong figures for water distribution, so without thinking about the politics, seems like the right thing to do is to re-analyze/re-negotiate.

Political consideration: If McCain is going to "lose" Colorado over this, wouldn't he then "gain" the 6 other states involved in this pact? Probably not, so it's probably typical media over-hype.

I disagree. He seemed much more sincere to me. Barrack was just doing his same song and dance routine - Saying a lot, saying it eloquently, but really not saying anything at all.

I won't vote for either of them, but I think McCain clearly won based on pure honesty (even if it was platform stuff with lot's of anecdotes).

Except the renegotiation that McCain is talking about would give more water to the lower basin. After reading up on the compact it does seem clear that the current water usage is too high, but as far as I know, nobody in the lower basin would agree to getting less water. I guess one positive of of the housing bust is that water usage growth should slow for a while.

NPR's All Things Considered had a big story on this a few months ago. The conclusion was that yes, the figures were now a) wrong and b) out of date, and that it needed to be re-done. Of course, it should be re-done by engineers, experts & urban planners, but it'll get re-done by politicians....


Here's two reasons why McCain, having learned his lesson from the Hagee fiasco, doesn't want to give Corsi too much airtime:

1. Group tied to al-Qaida backs McCain for prez

2. McCain fortune traced to organized crime


So, either Corsi's a nutso hack, or, as Sean Hannity and Mary Matalin would have you believe, he's an accomplished scholar just putting the truth out there.

ROFLMAO.

Regardless I think that McCain, of all people, being ruthlessly slandered by the Rove machine should be the first to want to dissolve himself from any sort of alignment with the Swift Boat types...we shall see though if the "when in Rome" statement overrides memory.

Not just no, but hell no.

Here's the thing. The way the compact is written, AZ, CA and NV have a combined allocation of 7.5 million acre-feet. Whatever's left gets split between Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. Senator McCain wants to increase the allocation going to AZ, CA and NV, which already is getting bad play in Colorado, and probably will not play well in the other three states.

Water is not enough of a hot-button issue in California to swing that state into McCain's column, but will almost certainly lose him Colorado and New Mexico. Possibly Wyoming. I don't see Utah going for Obama in either event, so I don't think it will hurt him there, but I do see a move like this costing him CO and NM while not gaining him CA.

If you look at electoral-vote.com, they had Colorado as "Barely GOP" and New Mexico as "Weak Dem." I would expect those two states to shift further away from him, which is 14 electoral votes he won't be getting. California he doesn't have a realistic chance at, IMO, so that's 69 electoral votes that he's not getting with this stance on the river compact.

Nevada is weak GOP, and since it would benefit from this, might shift more comfortably into his column. WY is solid GOP, but may find itself in play, and UT I just don't see voting for Obama under any circumstance. Does make me wonder what he thinks the writing on the wall is for Arizona, as that's the only other state likely to see this as a 'plus,' and that's a state he ought to win.

If you assume that that's the case, that he didn't do this with an eye towards AZ, but towards other states, then he lost 14 electoral votes while picking up perhaps five. We'll see what happens with Wyoming's 3 and Utah's 5, but that just seems like a net loss to me.

Well, while that may be what he wants (he is from Arizona, after all), a renegotiation would hammer those things out.

New post-Warren polls are up. Ohio and Colorado are both now a slight McCain lean. All three polling sites also show a drop in Obama's electoral votes. Also, Obama is now around a one point favorite nationwide, which is down from the 6 point lead he had a few weeks ago. Those who wanted a tight race now appear to have it. Certainly makes it fun to watch.

Not bad, Nostradamus.

It's not that big of a deal, but if you're referencing the PPP poll of Ohio, that was done pre-Saddleback. I don't know which CO poll you're looking at, but that was likely done partially or completely pre-Saddleback as well. I don't think any state polls would have been done entirely on a Sunday.

Over at the NYT this weekend, there's a long article postulating what a McCain Administration's foreign policy would look like, based on his background and his changing views in the 1990s and the past decade (beginning with an "aha" moment in 1997 that brought him into the neocon fold).

In short: even more belligerent than the Bush Administration, which is nicely encapsulated by his response to Georgia.

It's the Rassmussen poll dated August 13th, so you are correct that it was before the Warren chat. McCain was ahead by 3 points in CO.

See, but that's the interesting part. Some of the Obama advisors and more liberal media seem to think that painting McCain as somehow being like Bush is their road to a win for Obama. As several people have mentioned in this thread, even today, they'd still vote for Bush in 2004 if they had to do it again. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but the assumption that painting McCain as another Bush is going to win an election for Obama is highly flawed. There's a lot of people that can honestly say that they disagree with some of the moves that Bush has made, but they'd still support a conservative like Bush over a liberal candidate in an election.

I think linking McCain to Bush is absolutely the way to go. I loved the John McCain's president line this weekend. I'll take the risk that Mr. 30% isn't the key to victory for McCain.

dola

I have been trying to find info on McCain's child tax credit. During Saddleback he said he's proposing a 7000 tax credit for each child! Does anyone know if he really meant that or misspoke? My guess is he meant to say deduction, but nobody seems to be checking with McCain's camp. If it really is a tax credit, I'll probably never pay taxes again.

In related news, I'm shocked that you agree with that line of thinking. ;)

It's just simple math. Bush is one of the least popular President's of the 20th century. I don't know whether Obama can successfully link them, but they've largely stopped trying over the past month. If people see McCain as a continuation of Bush, Obama wins.

Small sample size FTW

Yes and no.

There's a bunch of groups who voted for Bush in 2004:

1. People who liked his first administration and wanted more of the same. These people are either going to go straight for McCain or don't like McCain (see: Huckabee supporters) and may or may not vote for him. There's nothing for Obama here, and tying McCain to Bush isn't going to affect these folks either way.

2. People who didn't like Bush all that much after his first administration, but disagreed with Kerry on too many issues. Given that by most measures the country is worse off than in 2004, tying McCain to Bush may get some of these people to a) stay home & not donate money or b) try out Obama just for the heck of it. Obama's appeal to Christian voters, and the rhetorical moderation on the issues is also part of this plan.

3. People who voted for Bush as the lesser of two tools. Assuming that these people don't also think Obama is a tool, tying McCain to Bush is exactly the right strategy here.

The New York Times (D) would have you believe that.

Unlike (R) newspapers, (D) ones back up their stories with data, examples, and actual facts.

But as we know, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

On #2, I don't see a whole lot of difference between Obama and Kerry regarding policy. Kerry was a 1970 Black Mustang and Obama is a 2008 Red Mustang. The age and paint job may be different, but it's still a Mustang at its core.

On #3, I don't believe anyone thinks he's a tool. His obvious vulnerability is his inexperience. I personally am not a big fan of his joking barbs at McCain either. It's one thing to point out the problems with the other candidate. But his jokes that play to the liberal core really fall on deaf ear from my point of view. Is he going to crack a joke about how the Russians "just don't get it" when they invade another former Soviet republic like he does regarding McCain policies? It just seems immature and that's the last thing I want from my leader when dealing with foreign powers who aren't fooling around and will kill people or invade countries on a whim. If he wants to be a leader, he should act like a leader during and after the campaign.

Can be debated ad naseum by both sides.


:eek:

Say what?

I'm liberal and I hate Democrats with a passion. So I have no idea who to vote for.

Colbert reference.

Sorry Warhammer, the entire post was an in-joke @ Dutch.


...and has been, mostly with Dutch. Search for "Dutch" and "AP".


Colbert. :D

+1 vote for in-joke/sarcasm tags.

I think I keep up with the news more than the average person and I haven't heard anything about this. So unless someone starts pushing the issue, I can't see it hurting McCain here much.

I would wager a large amount of money it will be in an Obama ad that will be on the air in CO probably before the end of august but definitly before september is over.

I'd like to apologize for my not being hip to Colbert.

Actually, I think you will find he is one of the most popular Presidents of the 21st century. :)

Gold. Works on so many levels.

Well that was stupid of me.

It happens. *shurg*

Hey, you spend enough time watching McCain campaign commercials, and it does feel like it's still the 20th century. :D

More polls out this morning. The newest Minnesota poll has Obama's lead shrinking to 47-45, which is a much smaller number than a month or two ago. Also, McCain's lead in GA is now 7 points, but the poll also shows that Barr is only pulling 1% of the vote, so the Barr effect in GA appears to be mostly overhyped.

Thanks for the poll updates, MBBF. The race is basically a dead heat right now, and the EVs are, by most accounts, almost even. However, get ready for the roller-coaster over the next two weeks as we have both conventions.

I think the GOP convention ends by 9/4, so maybe by 9/8 or 9/9 we'll be looking at post-convention polls to indicate the starting point for the home stretch?

Barr only matters if he gets national exposure. As long as he's shut out of the debates and all most all news coverage he won't matter. If he gets enough media attention it's conceivable he could get 3-5% in some states and maybe make a difference.

Yeah, we'll have to take a snapshot right before the first convention and then wait to see what it looks like after the last convention. Some like to look at the 'bumps' before and after each one, but I think the overall before and after provides the best picture of who fared the best.

I do think there's one great side effect of several tight elections. It's creating a greater interest in voting amongst the general public and increased registration. That's certainly a welcome change and I hope it continues.

As someone who didn't pay much attention to the behind the scenes stuff how did Perot end up in the debates? Was he popular before the debates or did that cause him to move way up? I have always felt that any third party (even the communist canidate) causes the politicians to actually debate each other and offer up solutions instead of just saying what is wrong with the other one.

I think it's pretty much up to whoever's running the debates, whether they invite you or not. Perot was much more of a factor than Barr is (Perot actually led in the polling for much of '92).

I found this that lays out the 1992 rules and the changes made after that. Perot not only had the advantage of being in the debates, he also had those half hour programs. I'm sure Barr can't afford to get the same level of exposure.