Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)
 

So, we have our challengers now for the Presidency. How will this election play out? It is going to be an interesting and historic one for sure. I believe this matchup is going to break down some of the patterns of the past presidential elections, but it still going to be a close one with maybe some states that haven't been "swing states" in the past becoming in play. What's your prediction on how this election will play out?

Gallup (RV)
Rasmussen (LV)
CBS News (Both)
Quinnipiac (LV)
Battleground (LV)
Hotline/FD (RV)
Reuters/Zogby (LV)
Newsweek (RV)
Associated Press (LV)
NBC News (RV)
ABC News (RV)
FOX News (RV)
CNN/OpinionResearch (RV)

If Hillary's PO'd supporters don't come home...and Florida and Michigan voters fly the middle finger at the Democrat party for being snubbed, McCain wins big. If the Republican's conservative base decides to stay home, it could be a close race, but I still think McCain wins since Obama pretty much got blown out by Hillary in all the big / battleground state primaries.

I would have put the Republican odds at about 1,000-to-1 a year ago.

Now that they've nominated someone who appeals to independents, and the Democrats have had a very divisive and whimsical primary, I'd say it's more like 3-to-1 against McCain right now. Still a tough road, but not the miracle long shot it once was.

Were Florida and Michigan really "snubbed"? Can you call it "snubbed" when you know the consequences *before* you decide to break ranks with party policy and do it anyway?

THE political tee for this year's election...

We'll we should be well used to it by now, eh? We've been gettinger screwed much, much harder over the last 8 years than we'll be in the forseeable future.

Whatever comes after Bush will feel like sweet, sweet gentle lovin'.

*cue Barry White music*

I live in Michigan. I don't feel snubbed.

I live in Florida...lot of mad Democrats down here. And since Hillary won the state pretty comfortably...they ain't happy, and if local talk radio is any indicator...a lot of them are either staying home or voting for McCain.

Well, if they want to keep this country from going further into the crapper, they better cowboy up and get with it.

Like Spock said, it's logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Yeah...I remember everyone saying the same thing about Jimmy Carter back in '75...and that turned out well... :rolleyes:

Um. Obama got the necessary delegates regardless of Florida and Michigan, didn't he? Suck it up.

me too, and I completely disagree so, considering I lean further left than SFL cat does, take that FWIW. I dont feel snubbed and will vote for the candidate that I think will steer as as far away from what has been evidenced by the last 8 years and the numerous tell alls from people who have left the administration....However each and every one has just been disgruntled and a liar, apparently, except Ari Fleischer, everyone else though....total and complete liars. All of 'em. While they were with the administration they were truth tellers....now theyre liars.

I have to cancel out cam's vote, so I'll be voting Obama. ;)

Why type out my answer when it's already been given?

I vote in Michigan and I feel screwed by both parties. Nader or Libertarian for me.

I'd hit it.

I don't think there is a Republican past, present or future who could win this election after the way the public views what Bush has done to this country.

I see Obama winning in Reagan fashion.

The difference is, W couldn't even sniff Gerald Ford's jockstrap much less hold it. That's so insulting to Ford ( who lost primarily as backlash as well because he wasn't a bad president at all ) it's laughable.

I think this will be a close election.

Get a grip Axxon.

The first term was pretty good at worst. The second term stumbles have made virtually no one happy, although there's still quite a gap about which stumbles were the most troublesome. Specifically, I don't even think Iraq makes my top three gripes (at least not in terms of presence). Low approval ratings are virtually assured when you've got one contingent unhappy about the things he's done and a whole different contingent upset with the things he didn't do, the latter being the group I fall solidly into.

There's one school of thought that suggests that if you're upsetting two highly divergent groups, you're probably doing a decent job of splitting the middle (not a theory I'm prone to subscribing to, but it still exists).

Popular vote I'd agree. Too hard for me to call at this point what the electoral margin might be, since a consistent set of narrow wins can turn into a big electoral gap. At the moment I could believe an electoral landslide for either to one that comes down to counting absentee & provisional ballots. All depends upon how effectively McCain can campaign.

I't be as naive to not think this as it would be to consider public opinion 2 years before the election to be meaningful. ;)

Still, I'm pretty sure the 100 years in Iraq thing is going to be the dealbreaker for the republicans.


FWIW, here's a thread I read on a conservative message board that makes sense and if it happened would be a great thing for the republicans. I didn't really realize though, how bad the divide was on that side. It isn't going to happen this cycle but if it did, I'd have to reconsider my position against voting for the party ever again.

Here's the first post.


There's not one president on that list I wouldn't vote for if he was running FWIW which is what interested me in the thread and the entire post pretty much sums up my opinion of the current state of the party.


Hmm, who came into power in 1980 and who is the one president I've said I absolutely hated? Oh yeah... ;)

hxxp://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=176966&forum_id=5

even if you supported the invasion of Iraq on a military basis, the waters become so muddled when you add in the shortfalls deficit wise, the excised military budgeting in re: to I&A, coupled with the slow down of the economy that it's tough to stand up and say that it was handled even with a hint of intelligence or planning.

On the second note about splitting the middle I would be willing to bet you find anyone on the left saying he did a good job of splitting anything except splitting all good support he had following 9/11 from his administration.

...however you knew I'd say that before I said it.

My amateur analysis: The Republicans came out of the primary with their strongest GE candidate, while the Democrats did not. I think Clinton would have demolished McCain (electoral college, at least). Obama will not win Florida, so he'll have to win both Ohio and Pennsylvania - which will be difficult, although not impossible.

No offense Jon but your opinion is so far from any middle ground that anything you consider "pretty good" has to be taken with a pillar of salt. :)

The problem in this country right now is that the political parties are so polarized, completely petrified that the other guy will win, that they're going to hold their nose and vote for someone simply on that label. That's why 2004 was so close IMHO and why you can't say really predict how this election will go.

I've talked to way to many people who vote republican who hated W even in 2k4 but voted for him anyway. It's why I was intrigued with the thread I just posted which would be another step in backing both sides from the ideological extremes which is hurting this country very badly because most people really don't fall under either extremes.

It's quite possible to hold a set of beliefs, protect them, without going batshit insane in doing so. It's called compromise and the country really needs it but the rhetoric is so high right now, no one wants to take the first step.

Obama, will win Florida. IMO

I disagree with this assessment only in that it is never 1,000-to-1 in a presidential campaign -- when the most critical factor you will be dealing with -- the candidates -- are a complete unknown.

I do agree with your point that it is easier to see how Obama wins this race than McCain, although I'd take McCain with the odds you are giving. A lot has to go right in the next couple of months for Obama to win.

Most importantly in the near term, HRC has to fully commit to supporting Obama. Obama needs her supporters on board now to start filling out the state-by-state organizations he is going to need be effective in key states. Her organizational supporters in OH and FL, for example, will be critical.

The debates are going to be huge this election cycle because there's no way McCain is going to look good here. He's no where near as charismatic and he comes off as a cantankerous old man. If he starts snapping at Obama then he's done IMHO because no way Obama rises to the bait and he's smooth enough to look like silk when he turns that tactic aside.

This is very reminiscent of Nixon/Kennedy in that regard.

Dude, that's not a given. Sure, more Floridians will think they voted for Obama but what they really chose, who can say?? ;)

:eek: Not how I remember it all. The Dems painted Ford as a Nixon tool, especially after Nixon's Watergate pardon; an idiot, he was heavily blamed for the economic doldrums caused by a lot of Nixon's fiscal policies; and on top of everything else, a klutz -- what the hell is that clown going to trip over today?

Poor Gerald didn't even get a sympathy bump when Squeaky Fromme tried to put a bullet in him. Glad to know that down deep inside Democrats actually held the guy in such high esteem, despite what was said.

I will be very surprised at a landslide victory. I even think McCain has a decent chance. There are the people that truly support McCain and/or the Republican party, there are the people upset about Clinton, there are the people that feel Obama is dirty because he's in Illinois politics and there are the morons like my coworker that says, "I will move if America elects someone with the middle name 'Hussein.'" (He is a Witness and does not vote)

It isn't the parties Ax, it's the members of the parties, i.e. the citizens, the voters, the people. And those sitting on the fence aren't particularly liked or respected by either.


No Ax, it's called surrender, to the greatest enemy the nation faces.

Like I said, they voted Carter as a backlash against Nixon and watergate. Simpe stuff. Remember, they'd never voted for Ford either so there was no attachment. He was screwed either way.

Say what you will about Democrats there but Nixon had taken 72 in a landslide so it certainly isn't clear that there was this huge political divide like there is now. There was huge disillusionment which is hard to understand now sometimes since now disillusionment is the norm.

As for what he can trip over now, who knows? Dole took the last really good one. :D

Maybe its just because I've been a McCain fan for a long time, going back to before 2000, but I just don't see this at all. He's not a particularly polished speaker when reading, but he has terrific presence when he's unscripted - I would expect him to do well in a debate. Cantankerous old man, that sounds like Dole, Perot, maybe Bush 41, but it doesn't seem to describe McCain at all.

LOL, that's true. If the ballots end up in a locked safe never to be counted anyone could win. Is Katherine Harris still in charge?

That's right Jon, half the country is the greatest enemy the nation faces. You've said it before. Extremely few people buy it and it lessens every day. People tire of this crap and that's why the middle is so popular. It's where most of the people are.

I'm confused though about the first paragraph. So, you're saying that either you have to be an extremist to the left or an extremist to the right or you aren't respected. I have to disagree with that.

I honestly thought Hillary would give McCain a tougher race than Obama.

I saw today that Obama's people were spinning that he was all about getting the delegates and not worried about underperforming in key battleground states...wonder how they'll spin it if McCain blows him out in those states during the general?

I don't know. That's the feeling I got in the republican debates. I think he fared badly in those.

I think McCain would have to Swift Vote to win and Im hopeful that he wont resort to that tactic since Bush used such underhanded tactics on McCain himself.

I don't think Hillary would have given a better race. There's way too many republicans who still have a hate on for the Clintons, especially the far right who really doesn't like McCain all that much either. They'd certainly have been motivated to vote against a Clinton but now, maybe not so motivated to vote for McCain.

I think the proof is in the pudding considering how many republicans worked hard to vote for Clinton trying to get her in the general election. You can say that this shows they support her but I'm not that naive; they preferred facing her.

I find the Carter-Obama comparison amusing. They are polar opposites. The knock on Obama is that he doesn't give specifics and speaks about vision, where Carter was a consumate micromanager and got too wrapped up in the minutiae of day to day operations.

I agree. The idea of Clinton as president would be enough to get people out to vote against her. She's a polarizing figure. While McCain may not cater to all, a lot of moderates like him and I think he'd get their vote over Clinton's.

I still think McCain was the Republican's best bet for the White House regardless of the Democrat's nomination.

Hopefully Obama can pull this out.

See you fellas in November.

Plus, I've already seen this photo making the rounds and used in this kind of discussion.



This one too.



Unfair, but image is everything nowadays.

Have people looked at the electoral map? I'm just amazed that Obama is running away with it here. Must be post nomination bump effect in full swing.

To me, except for a few issues, McCain and Clinton are pretty much the same politicians ...so in a race between them people vote for their parties ... and with a lot of Dems fired up about getting rid of Bush and a lot of Republicans lukewarm about McCain - I can see a very good chance of a Dem victory.

Now Obama is far to the left of Clinton (especially after she tried to edge toward the middle for broader appeal), I think he's ranked as one of the most left-leaning members of the Senate. Other than his brief time in the Senate, he has NO resume or accomplishments to speak of (unless he wants to tout being the first black man nominated by a political party for president)....at least Jimmy Carter could say he had been in the military and was the governor of a state. In addition, I think we now start to hear a lot more about his associations with Rezko, Giannoulias, Ayers, not to mention his kook ex-pastor. Admit it or not, there is a split in the Democrat party that rivals anything among Republicans at the moment, and depending on how Clinton is handled by Obama and the party heading into the Convention, will determine whether her supporters hop on the bandwagon, vote for McCain or stay home. Also, I think an Obama candidacy causes a lot of Republicans to vote who otherwise might have stayed home, because as lukewarm as they might be toward McCain...Clinton is the devil they know...Obama is the great unknown.

Right up until he hits an audience that actually understands a subject & then he's exposed as a borderline idiot.

Hearing him speak on issues concerning the broadcast industry is downright painful, He's utterly clueless on the subject and yet doesn't let it stop him for a second.

Sorry Cronin, but his best (and only real) hope is to be "not Obama". If it depends on being McCain, he's a dead duck.

Yep, that's where I'd want to stake my claim -- the middle, right there with the folks who make American Idol so popular. Ever heard me make many arguments in favor of the intelligence or character of the average American?
I didn't think so.


Be committed to something. Hell, be committed to anything other than mediocrity, surrender, appeasement of your enemies. Honestly Axxon, those that aren't are pretty easily dismissed & not worthy of a great deal of respect. They've already shown either a lack of principles or a willingness to bend whatever weak principles they have. They're easy enough to go around or through when the need arises.

Agreed ... but not necessarily because they thought that race was more winnable (indeed, I believe enough GOP voters didn't see enough difference that she would have won that matchup).

It's just that losing it wasn't nearly as potentially devastating to the nation as the alternative prospect. Hillary's problem was going to be execution, no matter how horrendous some of her proposals were, at least some of them were doomed to failure because there's only so much money to throw around.

I'd certainly disagree here. In a normal election cycle yeah, sure, but this is a vote on the war and the declining economy. The country as a whole is getting tired and democrats have been voting in record numbers. It's very naive to think that those numbers are going to just stay home now ( oh gee, only Hillary could solve this mess, might as well stay at home - that's insulting. Oh gee, Hillary lost, only McCain can solve this mess is equally as insulting. Plus I think more republicans would have voted against Hillary due to the Clinton name. Apparently I'm reading different conservative boards than you are here ) that Hillary lost. It's about being fed up with the status quo not pro any candidate at this point. I just don't see a huge fallout no matter which candidate would have won the nomination.

Um. So if you are in the "middle", which merely means you believe in some of the Republican ideals and some of the Democrat ideals, makes you unintelligent? If my only choice to be a zealot for are the Democrats and the Republicans, there's far more wrong with the world than being a moderate.

Axxon - this election, like all general elections, will not be determined by Democrats or Republicans. It will be determined by independents. If the independents turn against Obama, he will lose. Likewise, if the independents turn against McCain, he will lose.

I remember people debating that the '06 elections were actually going to be close (no way they lose the senate) and the GOP got their asses handed to them. While I am of the opinion that the Democrats didn't do anything about Iraq I think most of the country still blames this on Bush 100% and think a Democratic president will get us out of Iraq. While I can't say that I want Obama (or McCain either) to win. I think on Iraq alone ('100 years' will be an ad that we see a whole lot) Obama wins in a landslide.

Or maybe they have a vision that their parents were right. You know, Jon, play well with others and all that. Maybe they look at both extremes and honestly disagree with both of them. I know I do; I just am more afraid of the right's kooks than I am of the left's kooks honestly.

All those things you consider weakness are things I stand for. I believe that the answer is in the middle because more people will work towards accomplishing your goals instead of opposing them simply because you have an R or D behind your name. I believe you'll get more workable ideas that way and I don't believe that anyone's interests should be marginalized though the extreme ones shouldn't be acted on.

Compromise isn't appeasement no matter what you think.

I believe that more or less this country believed in this pre Reagan and while there were missteps that this country did alright and left or right you could feel proud of it. Now, not so much.

The GOP in fact lost the Senate by a tiny margin.

It's not about the labels, they're merely a convenient shorthand. It's about the principles that each are attached to. And there's too many instances where the two have distinct separations for me to find credible anyone who can't find enough to distinguish which camp they fall into more closely.

I'm not remotely suggesting that there's some need for a 100% match (remember, I'm adamantly pro-choice), but damned if I can understand how anyone can't find a reasonably consistent leaning toward which one is more compatible with their own priorities ... or at least damned if I can take very seriously anyone who can't.

I'm not disagreeing with this so I'm not sure which of my posts you disagreed with that made you post this. Sorry.

So your goal is to make everyone unhappy? That's what Bush gets blasted for.


We disagree. The best scenario for compromise is with your knee in your opponent's chest and your knife at his throat. That's an acceptable compromise, anything less is nothing more than putting a shine on failure.

They lost an awful lot of seats. I think they lost every single close senate and house election. (Obviously some areas are GOP and Dem strongholds where the other side will never win) Missouri was solidly Bush and GOP territory in '00 and '04 and McKaskill won in '06. I didn't mean to say they won a huge majority of the senate, I mean they won every possible seat they should of won and most of the ones that they had a chance on.

My goal isn't to make anyone happy or unhappy. My goal isn't appeasement. It's doing what's in the best interest of the country first and that generally falls in the middle ranges not either extreme.

Your way simply ensures that while you've got your knee on some guys chest and holding a knife to their throat that the next guy is sharpening his knife waiting for you to finish so he can stick it to you. That's not good politics it's madness.

If voters are disillusioned because they feel mistreated by their own party or they feel their candidate has been mistreated (whether legitimate or not), then hell yeah, I can see them staying home. Nothing stings worse than a perceived slight/insult from a supposed ally. Like I said, a lot will depend on how Obama and the party deal with Hillary leading up to the convention. And as I have also said, if Hillary doesn't get what she wants, I easily could see her endorsing McCain out of spite.

Hillary WON'T endorse McCain. She's already seeing the grief Liebermann is getting. She just won't campaign for him.

I used to work with a guy who was far more extremely republican than anyone here, even Jon. He was a nice guy but out there.

We had a friendly ( I thought ) bet about that election. I said the democrats would win the house but not the senate and he said the democrats wouldn't win either.

Well, that night, after Fox called both chambers democrat I went up to him and wanted to be very conciliatory.

I said "man, hard night tonight. Looks like things went different than either of us thought."

"It's not over yet."

:confused:

"Come on, it's over. Fox just called it."

"You can't believe the liberal media."

:confused: I'd never heard Fox called liberal before.

"I'm reading (some conservative blogger I'd never heard of ) and he's saying that the exit polling is way closer than everyone else is posting. It looks like we're actually going to pick up some seats in the senate and could still keep the house."

"Dude, everyone is saying it's over. I've read republican leaders say it's over."

"Get out of here. You're only trying to agitate me."

We never spoke on politics or about the bet ever again. Nice guy but that was a HUGE wow moment.

NO, she'd never do that but I agree she aced herself into the picture with the preemptive strike on the vp situation. It's going to look bad if he doesn't give it to her now.

Then again, anyone who would vote against their beliefs simply for spite, well, that's when I agree with Jon, those people deserve whatever they get.

I don't think she'd campaign for McCain unless she endorsed him. That'd be odd.

I have to admit that I am not caught up with the minutiae of the demographics of this election yet, so it could be the case that independents will matter this year.

However, election strategy (especially on the Republican side) in the last 15 years had very little to do with convincing independent voters to vote for you. Simply put, the keystone strategy was turnout management: target the voters that were already ideologically inclined to vote for you and convince them to turn out to vote. The idea here was that it was more efficient and that there was more to gain by engaging your pre-existing base rather than to take the extra (and often wasted) step of having to convince undecideds and those already inclined to vote for the opponent.

there is no way in heck she'll campaign for anyone except Obama....Period.

I dunno. I keep looking at the two of them and thinking "I wonder if this is what it was like when Nixon ran against Kennedy." I just wonder if the stark contrast in appearance and speaking styles might not end up being more powerful than McCain thinks it will be.

I'm not saying it's likely to happen...but I could see her doing it. :)

As for McCain, except for his position on the war (which bascially mirrors Hillary's campaign position), he's pretty much a Democrat in what he supports...so if any moderate Democrats vote for him, I don't really see it as a vote against their beliefs.

Wow, Nixon/Kennedy. Wonder why no one has brought that up yet?? ;)

After the torture of the past 8 years, any Democrat who doesn't vote for Obama deserves what they get.

Well, some bright Republican campaign aid could mention to his candidate that gasoline prices are up nearly $2.00 per gallon on average since the Democrats took control of Congress. :)

and as far as my first presidential campaign ad....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4FD-j_Dqq8

I had read this last night on the conservative board I posted from earlier.


but today I also read this there.


So it looks like there's some debate on this issue but it can't be good to have this kind of divide on a board that literally only allows conservatives/republicans to post since these are the people who are supposed to like their candidates.

That's why you don't ever let him get near a knife in the first place (not to mention why you make sure several guys with firearms are covering you while you're "negotiating").


Clearly we disagree most strongly on that point.

I respectfully disagree. The 2004 election came down more to Bush turning out GOP voters from previously untapped sources than any dominance among independents.

This election would appear to rely even more on each candidate's ability to consolidate and turn out his party's base. Traditional Democrats are fractured by a difficult primary; traditional Republicans are demoralized by defeat and the failed Bush presidency and concerned about a candidate that many believe doesn't sufficiently embrace social conservatism. If independents split fairly evenly, which seems very possible, whoever turns out their base best wins.

That favors Dems, because 1) our base is angrier about the status quo; and 2) our base is bigger.

That's actually civil compared to some of the stuff I've seen going on between Obama and Clinton supporters on other boards.

Then they get guys with tanks to cover them while they're killing the guys with firearms. Yes, this is going to end well.

But the election was a butt-whoopin. In the Senate, 18 Dems were up (including Lieberman) and 15 GOP senators. Dems (and affiliated independents) won 24, GOP won 9. The national vote in all races went 56% to 42%. That is not a close election.

I think its because candidates do, surprisingly, distinguish themselves within a party at times. Clinton (Bill) may have more ideas that a voter agrees with than does Dole, however Bush may have more ideas that a voter agrees with than Gore. I don't have specific examples or personal opinions that necessarily match up with this, I just imagine it is possible. Personally, I would vote on one issue over any other this election cycle (gaining voting rights), but I don't see many major issues changing based on the candidate that is elected. We're in Iraq no matter who gets in -- we may pull out earlier with a Democrat, but I don't think the difference will be that large. They'll both spend a lot. Republicans may try to give us more money back even though they keep raising their budget. [shrug]

I won't be happy with politics until we're out of the two party system.

Are you talking about what I posted?

That site has a republican only and democrat only board and the democrat board is very not civil about Obama vs Clinton but in fairness, McCain isn't vs anybody yet so there's no reason for that heated a discussion.

With all this Nixon/Kennedy talk, I keep thinking that Obama has to pick Clinton to keep it going. Kennedy took LBJ and they hated each other from the primary battle.

That's why we love you, JimGA. How you manage to stay married with this philosophy is one of life's delightful mysteries. :)

Yes, and get mayor Daley's aupport wouldn't hurt either. ;)

Yes it was.

As for McCain, he still has a lot of ground to cover to win over the party's conservatives. Touting his willingness to sell out his party to side with Democrats time after time doesn't win him many brownie points .... :)

Personally, I don't think its a very smart strategy..."I think I'll flip off people who are more than likely to vote for me to score points with people who wouldn't vote for me if I was the last guy on earth"...but, what do I know? :D

True...and a lot of the conspiracy theories have LBJ involved in the plot to assassinate JFK. One more thing to consider before asking Hillary to be his VP. :)

My wife would definitely agree ;)

It's rough. There aren't enough members of his base to win without more moderate votes ( the ones without knees on their chests and knives to their throats that is ) and there's no way he gets those in this climate by appealing to his base.

Since he's polling higher than many thought he would kinda shows he's not making a horrible choice.

Not seriously but last night that thought crossed my mind. :)

Seriously...what's to keep some crazed backwoods bigot who decides no *unkind word for a person of color* is going to be my president? I'm sure Hillary's first action as president would be to appoint Bill to the head of some commission to get to the bottom of this horrible tragedy. ;)

Remember Eddie Murphy's bit on the first black president? :D

Actually, that's a great reason to pick Hillary. NO way a crazed backwoods bigot is going to want Hillary as prez.

You've got a point... :)

Obviously, he doesn't have to worry about these voters going to Clinton or Obama, but he does have to worry about them throwing up their hands, staying home, and letting things fall where they may.

Yes, but those people hate Clinton and would be far more motivated to get to the polls to vote against her than they will to get out to vote against Obama IMHO.

I voted for Obama in the poll, but the truth is I have no idea where this election is going. Obama has the "anybody else" vote, but I think there is still a lot of racism in America. And don't forget how historic Obama's run is: he wouldn't just be the first elected black American president, he would be the first elected black head of state in any white country anywhere. Ever.
In fact, I'm pretty sure he would be the first elected minority head of state in a white country.
If i were one of his campaign strategists, I would suggest starting to invite the Dwayne Johnsons, Vin Diesels and other high profile mullatos on the campaign just to give those middle class white voters the hint that "hey, actually Obama isn't really black, he's just half black, like Jason Kidd. or tiger woods. That's not so bad."

I'm sure someone has. I'm sure lots of someones have.

That's just what came to mind for me when I read Jon's comment is all.

+1

I was just teasing because I'd just mentioned it shortly upthread. That's all.

Or half black like, I don't know, Barack Obama.

You do realize his mother is white right?

Ann Dunham and her son Barack -



EDIT - ok, I see what you were saying but I'm leaving the picture up because it's a good one.

That is the real conundrum that Obama faces. Do you take HRC as your VP to ensure her supporters turn out for you, but then acquire all the baggage the Clintons bring along; or do you pick someone else, making a clean break from the Clinton/Bush era but risking losing a significant portion of her supporters.

FWIW on McCain - my father met with Mitt Romney a couple weeks back on business, and while they were preparing to shoot the video (for Bain Consulting's big birthday bash), they were talking politics.

Romney (who is universally acknowledged as a masterful speaker and persuasive person) said of Obama: "He's got it. No doubt about it. Unless he blows himself up, he's got it."

And when talking about McCain he said something to the effect of: "Poor John. Nice guy, but he can't read a teleprompter to save his life. Did you see his speech the other day? I read that speech in advance...he missed at least 75% of his great lines that were written into it because he can't follow the teleprompter."

I surmise that something like this may be why McCain would like to push the town-hall style debates - to play to his strength and get soundbites out of them instead of out of stilted, prepared speeches that he fumbles around in.