Presidential Election 2008 - who is still undecided?

[JoJo White]

Why would America suddenly stop liking Obama when all those things you cited have already come out? He's already lived through the bitter comments, Rev. Wright, the 57 states, Rezko, Ayers, and all those other issues and his favorable ratings are the same as they were back in February.

http://www.pollingreport.com/o.htm

You and the other Hannity and Rush listeners will never vote for Obama, but the fact is that most of America is not like you and in fact has a favorable opinion of him, just as most of America has a favorable opinion of McCain.

Most of America likes him, and that is a fact. So I don't see those attacks on character sticking. What more can possibly be said about Obama that hasn't already been said, with no effect on his favorable ratings?

[buckeye319]

After watching Biden, I'm more convinced now than I was when I predicted his VP nomination weeks ago at work that the only worse possible VP choice for either candidate would be Lieberman by McCain.

It makes sense when you figure Obama just needs more of Clinton's vote in some states - the so called "working class Democrats". There's a lot of Clinton voters who aren't turning for Obama. If they go his way, it's over. If they don't, well he's probably screwed. The VP pick was strictly made to win a couple states, which most Democratic strategists think will put them over the top.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Why would America suddenly stop liking Obama when all those things you cited have already come out? He's already lived through the bitter comments, Rev. Wright, the 57 states, Rezko, Ayers, and all those other issues and his favorable ratings are the same as they were back in February.

http://www.pollingreport.com/o.htm

You and the other Hannity and Rush listeners will never vote for Obama, but the fact is that most of America is not like you and in fact has a favorable opinion of him, just as most of America has a favorable opinion of McCain.

Most of America likes him, and that is a fact. So I don't see those attacks on character sticking. What more can possibly be said about Obama that hasn't already been said, with no effect on his favorable ratings?

You just cited polls that use extremely small sample sizes (1200 or less) to assess national attitude. You also failed to look at the methodology of those polls and did you even bother to glance down the page? Did you notice how he dropped three points in a month on CNN's poll? How's about that 39% favorability number from the New York Times poll?

BTW, did you know those CNN Polls are notorious for not evenly distributing their questions amongst a spread of voters - they actually do generally weight most polls towards the Democrats based on their models. All you have to do is actually look at the actual poll data.

Just looking at the data you can see how much variance there is.

Even so, you really don't GET it. Someone might look on you favorably and still not think you're QUALIFIED for a job. Experience matters. Why not look at polls that question that.

Listen, Obama might be a nice guy in person. Fact is that most people also don't know about the Ayers stuff. I guess you're okay with a guy that knowingly befriends unrepentant terrorists but there's not general awareness in the public yet on that one.

C'mon. Rasmussen and Gallup daily tracking have shown McCain opening up a lead. This stuff is doing some damage but Obama's lack of experience is doing more.

I never claimed that people didn't "like" Obama. I really am saying that they will question his judgment. That's extremely different and I shouldn't have thrown around favorability as much, but the reality is experience and judgment weight heavily on voters minds.

Even Barack questioned his own experience when he got elected to the Senate. He said he wasn't qualified for a national ticket and wouldn't be in 2008.

Great ad by McCain. Watch it until the end.

http://blip.tv/file/1209861

[jfiling]

*sigh*

I really don't sense any passion in this thread for either candidate. Not that I'm surprised by that, because both Obama and McCain suck. I am happy that I've seen a little bit of the spirit of voting for neither, but the best thing would be to vote for the person who has no chance of winning, just to throw the Democrat/Republican system a curveball. You don't think Obama is liberal enough for you? Cool, vote for Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. McCain isn't a true conservative? Bob Barr is going to be on the ballot. I hate this false dilemma that you must vote for either Obama or McCain. Even more than that, I hate the fact that the Democrats and the Republicans get to be the kingmakers in our system.

[leadpipe]

One comment on the whole "wasted vote" theory.

Bullshit. Vote for you you want.

I still think the best vote I ever cast for President was Ross Perot. Reason being, is I can look back without regret and say I voted for the right guy. So many points that he emphasized in 1990 ring true today, or are occuring as he predicted. "United We Stand" in which was copyrighted in 1992 should be required reading if only for the value of it's accuracy 16 years later.

Sure the hard core "Politicians" will say that he was ill-advised in regards to foreign policy. The same hard core "Politicians" that treated him as some kind of crack-pot because he was a threat to their little empire. Well the hard core "Politicians got whjat they wanted, and we're reaping the "Benefits" of their genius today - the same "Benefits" the Perot saw coming and had the balls to deal with.

Now, this isn't to try to make anyone a Perot fan that isn't or wasn't. My point is that just because my vote didn't put a guy in the office, doesn't mean it's a wasted vote.

Vote for YOURSELF. You'll always be happy with the choice.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

*sigh*

I really don't sense any passion in this thread for either candidate. Not that I'm surprised by that, because both Obama and McCain suck. I am happy that I've seen a little bit of the spirit of voting for neither, but the best thing would be to vote for the person who has no chance of winning, just to throw the Democrat/Republican system a curveball. You don't think Obama is liberal enough for you? Cool, vote for Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. McCain isn't a true conservative? Bob Barr is going to be on the ballot. I hate this false dilemma that you must vote for either Obama or McCain. Even more than that, I hate the fact that the Democrats and the Republicans get to be the kingmakers in our system.

Uh, Bob Barr is far from a true conservative. He once looked like one and has since thrown his conservative credentials under the bus by renouncing pretty much all the legislation he once worked for in order to join the Libertarians.

Our system has been a two party system since very early on. You can dream about trying to get a third party but history shows that that is not happening. I used to think more closely to you until I realized that any real political action has to be done through the current system. It is better to attempt to change things within a party. I was registered with no party affiliation for years and finally discovered how pointless that stance was. Then I decided to join a party and work in that party because I saw what reality was.

It's not a perfect system and anyone who's waiting for a perfect system or a perfect candidate is kidding themselves. McCain is not perfect in my eyes but he's a known cost cutter and strong of foreign policy. The US needs to remain the world's last super power in order to check a growing China and a resurgent Russia. This also means that we must reinvigorate the economy and McCain's corporate tax cut promise would help that. There's more that needs to be done but Obama would take this country down a bad, socialist road. McCain can take some baby steps in the right direction and that's why I'm voting for him.

[Bayou Tribe]

Jindal is all hype. He ran for governor as a different kind of politician, pledging transparency and ethics reform. And then his first month as gov, ethics charges were brought against him. And then the pay raise thing (Bayou can tell you all about this).

All hype.

Sorry my man, but you're looking in the wrong direction for a nod of approval on that statement. I'm actually a huge fan. He stumbled in how he initally handled the pay raise issue, without a doubt, but in the end he did the right thing and he owned his mistake. He publicly admitted that he didn't handle it correctly but in the end he made the right call. It wasn't perfect, but the end result was the correct call.

Also, concerning the ethics violation brought forth against him, everyone should read the entire story before casting judgement. It was a clerical error on campaign mail outs, he wasn't coked up with a dozen prostitutes in a Vegas hot tub on the state's dollar or bribing campaign officials all the way to the governor's mansion. He didn't need it, he won this thing by a landslide. It wasn't right, but it's not something that should keep him out of future higher offices.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/01/jindal_to_pay_ethics_fine.html

In the end I'm not asking for the man to be perfect, he's got 4 lifetimes worth of corrupt state goverment in his way and he won't turn it around in 1 term. So far, he's been fantastic. His ethics reform has been one of the toughest ever set down on the state level, he's bringing new business and new jobs into the state that we would have previously been passed on, and he's got full respect and backing of an overwhelming amount of the people.

We've never had a more promising figure leading this state, and I've never been more proud of my home state than I am right now.

[Ziner]

Why would America suddenly stop liking Obama when all those things you cited have already come out? He's already lived through the bitter comments, Rev. Wright, the 57 states, Rezko, Ayers, and all those other issues and his favorable ratings are the same as they were back in February.

Jojo, that 10% that decides the race doesnt know about that stuff. They live in lala land and dont pay attention until about this time. Obama is too inexperienced and has no record of anything. People will see through it. I agree with Mac it could get ugly for Barack in November. However I dont see a huge change in the Senate or House and what that tells me is people were voting against Obama not against the Democrats. The more he opens his mouth and the more stuff comes out about him it just seems like he is swimming up a shitcreek.

The other factor going against Obama is the Clinton machine, they arent happy, she wants her chance, she wants to run in 2012, you could tell in their speeches they dont have enthusiasm... they just do what they need to to play the part.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Jojo, that 10% that decides the race doesnt know about that stuff. They live in lala land and dont pay attention until about this time. Obama is too inexperienced and has no record of anything. People will see through it. I agree with Mac it could get ugly for Barack in November. However I dont see a huge change in the Senate or House and what that tells me is people were voting against Obama not against the Democrats. The more he opens his mouth and the more stuff comes out about him it just seems like he is swimming up a shitcreek.

It's hard to say in the House and Senate right now. If the Republicans push hard for domestic drilling and the Dems push back against it then it could damage them across the board.

The key for the Republicans is to run against Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Pelosi has been getting HAMMERED over the past few days from Catholic clerics as high up as Cardinal Egan of New York for her attempt to say that being pro-choice fits perfectly with Catholic theology. Bishops and Cardinals across the country are condemning her and that may have some impact on the working class blue collar Catholic population and the hispanic vote.

The Republicans can force offshore drilling by preventing a budget from being passed. The Democrats will have to allow for an up or down vote on the ban or the government will shut down. With around 70% of Americans now in support of offshore drilling, shutting down the government by refusing to have an up or down vote could hurt the Dems.

The Republicans need to go nationwide with Pelosi and Reid, two very unpopular politicians nationally. A vote for any Democrat in a Senate race is a vote to keep Reid in power. A vote for any Democrat in the House is a vote to keep Nancy Pelosi in power. Both McConnell and Boehner have better favorability and both can really improve their position by standing up for oil drilling in an attempt to increase global supply.

And Bayou, thanks for the defense of Jindal. You know much better than me. JoJo is just nit picking with the guy. No one is perfect, but Jindal has shown the ability in the past to admit mistakes and take the blame when he has done wrong. He really gets me excited for the future and he also gets me excited for your state. With so many generations of corruption I hope and pray that Jindal can be a major force to undo most of it in eight years. The people of Louisiana deserve so much more than they've gotten over the past fifty years. I think the Gulf Coast states are really starting to flourish now. Mississippi is doing well under Haley Barbour. Louisiana has Jindal. Riley has done well in Alabama.

Honestly we in Florida are the worst off with the idiot Crist. I can't believe I worked for the guy. Jeb was such a good governor for us and Charlie has really screwed things up. We're right now working on finding a strong candidate to take him out in the primaries in two years. Marco Rubio, Speaker of the Florida House, is the guy we're trying to get to go against Crist. He's of Cuban descent from Miami and is a big believer in small government unlike Crist. He'll just be 39 at that point, but he's a guy people should keep an eye on.

[Bayou Tribe]

Mississippi has really done well with gaining new business under Barbour and even with the assistance of Trent Lott. That Nissan plant north of Jackson is phenomenal, and there's talks of another big auto plant building up around Tupelo.

Also, what's the deal with Crist. It seemed like he had a promising future at one point? I don't follow it too closely, but what's been the downfall there? I had heard things about his insurance plans falling through, but I don't really know the whole story there.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Also, what's the deal with Crist. It seemed like he had a promising future at one point? I don't follow it too closely, but what's been the downfall there? I had heard things about his insurance plans falling through, but I don't really know the whole story there.

Crist is really too concerned about being liked so he never does anything too innovative or drastic.

The insurance thing is a big deal down here because of the hurricane threats (as you guys up in LA know too). The state cut a deal with the insurance carriers to create a major disaster fund to provide assistance and they hoped it would cause the insurance carriers to lower rates but it did not. Crist also expanded Citizens Insurance, the insurer of last resort that is run by the state, and basically threw them into competition with the private insurers. The Insurance Commissioner did make some headway against Allstate and got them to cut rates and pay a fine for essentially screwing over homeowners by being dishonest. State Farm of late has been trying to push through a 47% rate increase but has been rejected thus far. Funny thing is that the smaller, private insurers are doing well with low rates. We just don't have enough of them. They're solvent but the state restricts them so much.

Charlie also has caused problems with property taxes. He attempted to provide relief and it did get voted through. All it did was nearly double the exemption, but it didn't really help lower taxes.

Part of the problem comes from Florida's Save Our Homes exemption. Long term residents benefit greatly with Save Our Homes because it caps property tax increases. My parents bought their house in 1988 and pay very little. Me, buying much later, pay more than three times as much even though my house is worth just as much as theirs according to the tax assessment. This was designed to protect seniors but it ends up hitting new residents and new buyers the worst AND businesses don't get the same break. Essentially, new buyers and business bear the greatest burden in property taxes. The problem is the senior citizen vote that will not want their taxes significantly increased. Crist promised to fix it and then only managed to get a $50,000 exemption pushed through. There was an attempt to eliminate Save Our Homes and put in a $150,000+ mega exemption. I'm dissatisfied with both because they haven't sought to rein in the outrageous millages that counties and cities levy in this state. I'd like to cap the millage and lower the state millage.

There's also the fact that Crist pissed away the multi billion dollar surpluses that Jeb banked for the state. Most county and city governments down here did the same. With so many new residents buying inflated cost homes, property tax revenues went through the roof a few years ago. Now that the housing market has deflated those revenues have taken a major hit and all those governments managed to spend it all so now they have to cut - and those in charge don't want to cut their salaries.

Marco Rubio did come out with a plan to raise the sales tax and significantly reduce the property taxes. There has been some talk o f completely eliminating property taxes in the state but many are rightfully concerned about revenues. Florida has no income tax and likely never will (it requires a 60% vote from the people to have one). It can be argued that eliminating the property taxes would spur growth. Businesses would benefit the most and be able to hire more people because of their savings (a business with a building valued at $1M pays about $30,000 a year in property taxes depending on the place, most pay the max allowable 3% every year). I've been an advocate for removing the sales tax exemption from food or just keeping the tax off of essentials. The state sales tax sits at 6% right now with local governments able to bump it up a percent. The state government keeps around 5% here with the other bit staying in the local government.

The big problem is that Crist has shown no ability to try to find innovative solutions to the insurance problem and the tax problems. He's also really wishy washy on most things and seems to enjoy spending more time outside of the state than in it.

[JoJo White]

C'mon. Rasmussen and Gallup daily tracking have shown McCain opening up a lead. This stuff is doing some damage but Obama's lack of experience is doing more.

Guess we'll see in November. Good luck.

[jfiling]

*sigh*

I really don't sense any passion in this thread for either candidate. Not that I'm surprised by that, because both Obama and McCain suck. I am happy that I've seen a little bit of the spirit of voting for neither, but the best thing would be to vote for the person who has no chance of winning, just to throw the Democrat/Republican system a curveball. You don't think Obama is liberal enough for you? Cool, vote for Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. McCain isn't a true conservative? Bob Barr is going to be on the ballot. I hate this false dilemma that you must vote for either Obama or McCain. Even more than that, I hate the fact that the Democrats and the Republicans get to be the kingmakers in our system.

Uh, Bob Barr is far from a true conservative. He once looked like one and has since thrown his conservative credentials under the bus by renouncing pretty much all the legislation he once worked for in order to join the Libertarians.

I'm just saying compared to John McCain, Barr is Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan combined. Also, I'm not really sure that the legislation he has renounced was really true conservatism to begin with. That said, I didn't see his name on the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform act, which worked to eviscerate the First Amendment. I've really never understood how "conservatism" = "no free speech".

[Ziner]

Watching Obama's speech is hilarious... for being such a "great orator" this is so corny, staged and over the top...

[mikebrownz26]

Watching Obama's speech is hilarious... for being such a "great orator" this is so corny, staged and over the top...

I'm looking foward to see Obama attempt to talk his way through the presidential debates. Speeches about 'Hope and Change' will only get him so far.

[buckeye319]

Romney is set to be in Dayton tomorrow. Sounds like he's McCain's veep. I can't imagine him going there if he's not the choice.

[Ziner]

Romney is set to be in Dayton tomorrow. Sounds like he's McCain's veep. I can't imagine him going there if he's not the choice.

I read alot of the possible canidates were going to show up there... my bet is still on Pawlenty... although still kinda hoping for the lady from Alaska or KB Hutchinson

[buckeye319]

OK, I hadn't heard that. I read part on Romney on a conservative blog, and perhaps instead of implying Romney would be the veep, it was just the first they've heard he in fact will be there.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

OK, I hadn't heard that. I read part on Romney on a conservative blog, and perhaps instead of implying Romney would be the veep, it was just the first they've heard he in fact will be there.

McCain's camp said that both Romney and Pawlenty would be there. We know Crist will not be. Lieberman might, though McCain's people did tell some Congressmen to expect a traditional VP pick. That means Ridge and Lieberman are out.

I think Pawlenty is the best pick at this point. He's an experienced governor. He has a blue collar background (his dad was a truck driver, his mother a housewife, and Pawlenty helped to raise his siblings after his mother died). Bush only lost Minnesota by 100,000 votes last time and Wisconsin by 11,000. Pawlenty could swing both states for McCain and I believe Romney will still be very active for McCain in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, etc.

I have a feeling that Romney would serve in a McCain Cabinet as either Secretary of Commerce or Secretary of the Treasury. We could see Guiliani as Attorney General and Lieberman as Secretary of Defense. Don't be surprised if John Bolton is the nominee for Secretary of State if McCain wins.

Good Lord, that would be an AMAZING Cabinet.

[buckeye319]

OK, I hadn't heard that. I read part on Romney on a conservative blog, and perhaps instead of implying Romney would be the veep, it was just the first they've heard he in fact will be there.

McCain's camp said that both Romney and Pawlenty would be there. We know Crist will not be. Lieberman might, though McCain's people did tell some Congressmen to expect a traditional VP pick. That means Ridge and Lieberman are out.

I think Pawlenty is the best pick at this point. He's an experienced governor. He has a blue collar background (his dad was a truck driver, his mother a housewife, and Pawlenty helped to raise his siblings after his mother died). Bush only lost Minnesota by 100,000 votes last time and Wisconsin by 11,000. Pawlenty could swing both states for McCain and I believe Romney will still be very active for McCain in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, etc.

I have a feeling that Romney would serve in a McCain Cabinet as either Secretary of Commerce or Secretary of the Treasury. We could see Guiliani as Attorney General and Lieberman as Secretary of Defense. Don't be surprised if John Bolton is the nominee for Secretary of State if McCain wins.

Good Lord, that would be an AMAZING Cabinet.

I would be not be surprised, but stunned, if John Bolton was the Secretary of State. That would be one of the most political cabinets of all time, btw.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I would be not be surprised, but stunned, if John Bolton was the Secretary of State. That would be one of the most political cabinets of all time, btw.

I don't really know why it'd be all that political. I think Bolton was unfairly treated by the Senate. Most of the allegations against the man have been unfounded or complete hearsay, often from Democratic appointments in the State and Justice Dept. that disagree with his hardline stances on US sovereignty and diplomacy.

The major reason they don't like him is because Bolton is on record strongly criticizing the UN. I think most US citizens now are coming closer to Bolton's view on the UN and how worthless of an organization it is.

Bolton was certainly correct in his opposition to reward to North Korea for nuclear disarmament. He correctly noted that they would just stop doing it and ask for more to continue. Guess what has happened? Shocking.

[buckeye319]

Yeah, it's not so much his views as the general way he conducts his business that would be the concern.

As far as the political aspect that I mention, you'd have many recent or current politicians in major bureaucracies (Romney, Giuliani, Liebermann). That wouldn't hold over well with civil servants, much as the CIA was livid with the Porter Goss appointment.

btw, Lindsey Graham would really want that Sec Def nomination. I wish, whoever wins, that Gates could remain on, but that's unlikely.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

btw, Lindsey Graham would really want that Sec Def nomination. I wish, whoever wins, that Gates could remain on, but that's unlikely.

I wouldn't be opposed to keeping Gates. He's done a good job in the slot.

[Bayou Tribe]

Interesting... Captured on plane heading to Charlotte from DNC. DEM congressman and former chair of the DNC laughing about hurricane coming to New Orleans coinciding with RNC.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBus8ORR78[/youtube]

[idoctribefan]

Has this video made it onto TV yet? Foxnews? certainly not CNN or MSNBC. How did you come across it?

Libs do this kind of stuff all the time. Nothing much ever made of it due to the media.

[Bayou Tribe]

I found it off of a popular LSU message board on a Gustav thread. Not sure how recent or how far spread it is to be honest.

[FUDU]

Seriously who had a camera in that situation and why?

[Hi Oktane]

I found it off of a popular LSU message board on a Gustav thread. Not sure how recent or how far spread it is to be honest.

Appears that he had trouble finding a vein also.

[skatingtripods]

"That just demonstrates that God's on our side"

What a fucker.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Michael Moore was saying similar stuff publicly but I'm sure that a lot of the Dems are giddy. They root for misfortune so they can create more victims.

Too bad we haven't got any footage of Obama's happiness over this. I wouldn't be surprised to hear him gleeful that so many people are displaced and have had their lives thrown in disarray. To him and his ilk it is just another way to leverage power.

We definitely know it's true of these guys. I hope the good people of South Carolina get to see this and get to see it a lot.

[skatingtripods]

We definitely know it's true of these guys. I hope the good people of South Carolina get to see this and get to see it a lot.

My girlfriend's originally from SC. She's going to love this when she sees it.

She's also a huge Mark Sanford fan and wants a Jindal/Sanford ticket in 2012.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

My girlfriend's originally from SC. She's going to love this when she sees it.

She's also a huge Mark Sanford fan and wants a Jindal/Sanford ticket in 2012.

Starting to look more like a Palin/Jindal ticket. I could live with Jindal/Sanford (could actually more than live with it).

[WarAdmiral]

Michael Moore was saying similar stuff publicly but I'm sure that a lot of the Dems are giddy. They root for misfortune so they can create more victims.

Too bad we haven't got any footage of Obama's happiness over this. I wouldn't be surprised to hear him gleeful that so many people are displaced and have had their lives thrown in disarray. To him and his ilk it is just another way to leverage power.

We definitely know it's true of these guys. I hope the good people of South Carolina get to see this and get to see it a lot.

Your opinions are Ludicrous

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Your opinions are Ludicrous

I hope they are. I really do hope that Obama and his camp aren't gleeful over Gustav. Fowler obviously was happy. Moore obviously was happy. I really hope Obama doesn't care about his party at this point in time, but what I've learned about him makes me think that he's happy for the circumstance.

I really do hope I'm wrong because I'd be equally disgusted if a Republican were giggling over the misfortune of others.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Excellent article from last week in Newsweek where noted liberal Princeton historian took a deep look at Obama and found much to be wanting.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/154911/page/1

A few highlights:

Against this backdrop, how has the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, proposed to revivify Democratic liberalism? There is a quotation that ought to give Democrats, and not just Democrats, pause: "This year will not be a year of politics as usual. It can be a year of inspiration and hope, and it will be a year of concern, of quiet and sober reassessment of our nation's character and purpose. It has already been a year when voters have confounded the experts. And I guarantee you that it will be the year when we give the government of this country back to the people of this country. There is a new mood in America. We have been shaken by a tragic war abroad and by scandals and broken promises at home. Our people are searching for new voices and new ideas and new leaders."

Delivered in Obama's exhortatory cadences, the words are uplifting. The trouble is, though they seem to fit, the passage is from Carter's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in 1976.

The convergence is revealing. As Republican strategists have begun to notice with delight, Obama's liberal alternative to the post-Bush GOP to date has much in common with Carter's post-Watergate liberalism. Rejecting "politics as usual," attacking "Washington" as the problem, promising to heal the breaches and hurts caused by partisan political polarization, pledging to break the grip that lobbyists and special interests hold over the national government, wearing his Christian faith on his sleeve as a key to his mind, heart and soul—in all of these ways, Obama resembles Jimmy Carter more than he does any other Democratic president in living memory.

Obama still has a long way to go to describe the kind of liberalism he stands for, how it meets the enormous challenges of the present—and how it will meet as-yet-unanticipated challenges after the election. Nowhere is this more crucial than in the harsh and volatile realm of foreign policy. Last winter, when his candidacy gained traction, Obama's foreign-policy credentials consisted almost entirely of a speech he gave before a left-wing rally in Chicago in 2002, denouncing the impending invasion of Iraq as "a dumb war." That speech, made by a state senator representing a liberal district that included the University of Chicago, and that went unreported in the Chicago Tribune's lengthy article on the rally, was enough to convince many of his supporters that he is blessed with superior acumen and good instincts about foreign affairs. Later comments, such as his promise, later softened, to meet directly and "without preconditions" with the leaders of Iran and other supporters of terrorism, pleased left-wing Democrats and young antiwar voters as a sign of boldness—even as they left experienced diplomats in wonder at such half-baked formulations.

Then, suddenly this summer, Russia attacked Georgia—and Obama's immediate reaction was to call for reasonableness and good intentions and urge both sides to show restraint and enter into direct talks. Unfortunately his appeal sounded almost like a caricature of liberal wishful thinking. It was left to his opponent, John McCain—whose own past judgments on foreign policy demand scrutiny—to declare right away the sort of thing that might have come naturally to previous generations of liberal Democrats (let alone to a conservative Republican): that "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory." Beyond the matter of experience, beyond how thoroughly the two candidates had thought through the situation, the difference highlighted how Obama still lacks a comprehensive vision of international politics.

Can Obama, who lost the large industrial states in the primaries, deal with a troubled economy and become the standard bearer for the working and middle classes—the historic core of the Democratic Party that the last two Democratic candidates lost? Can the inexperienced candidate persuasively outline a new foreign policy that addresses the quagmires left by the Bush administration and faces the challenges of terrorism and a resurgent Russia? Can the less-than-one-term senator become the master of the Congress and enact goals such as universal health care that have eluded Democratic presidents since Truman? On these fundamental questions may hang the fate of Obama's candidacy. In the absence of a compelling record, set speeches, even with the most stirring words, will not resolve these matters. And until he resolves them, Obama will remain the most unformed candidate in the modern history of presidential politics.

[buckeye319]

Excellent article from last week in Newsweek where noted liberal Princeton historian took a deep look at Obama and found much to be wanting.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/154911/page/1

A few highlights:

Against this backdrop, how has the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, proposed to revivify Democratic liberalism? There is a quotation that ought to give Democrats, and not just Democrats, pause: "This year will not be a year of politics as usual. It can be a year of inspiration and hope, and it will be a year of concern, of quiet and sober reassessment of our nation's character and purpose. It has already been a year when voters have confounded the experts. And I guarantee you that it will be the year when we give the government of this country back to the people of this country. There is a new mood in America. We have been shaken by a tragic war abroad and by scandals and broken promises at home. Our people are searching for new voices and new ideas and new leaders."

Delivered in Obama's exhortatory cadences, the words are uplifting. The trouble is, though they seem to fit, the passage is from Carter's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in 1976.

The convergence is revealing. As Republican strategists have begun to notice with delight, Obama's liberal alternative to the post-Bush GOP to date has much in common with Carter's post-Watergate liberalism. Rejecting "politics as usual," attacking "Washington" as the problem, promising to heal the breaches and hurts caused by partisan political polarization, pledging to break the grip that lobbyists and special interests hold over the national government, wearing his Christian faith on his sleeve as a key to his mind, heart and soul—in all of these ways, Obama resembles Jimmy Carter more than he does any other Democratic president in living memory.

Obama still has a long way to go to describe the kind of liberalism he stands for, how it meets the enormous challenges of the present—and how it will meet as-yet-unanticipated challenges after the election. Nowhere is this more crucial than in the harsh and volatile realm of foreign policy. Last winter, when his candidacy gained traction, Obama's foreign-policy credentials consisted almost entirely of a speech he gave before a left-wing rally in Chicago in 2002, denouncing the impending invasion of Iraq as "a dumb war." That speech, made by a state senator representing a liberal district that included the University of Chicago, and that went unreported in the Chicago Tribune's lengthy article on the rally, was enough to convince many of his supporters that he is blessed with superior acumen and good instincts about foreign affairs. Later comments, such as his promise, later softened, to meet directly and "without preconditions" with the leaders of Iran and other supporters of terrorism, pleased left-wing Democrats and young antiwar voters as a sign of boldness—even as they left experienced diplomats in wonder at such half-baked formulations.

Then, suddenly this summer, Russia attacked Georgia—and Obama's immediate reaction was to call for reasonableness and good intentions and urge both sides to show restraint and enter into direct talks. Unfortunately his appeal sounded almost like a caricature of liberal wishful thinking. It was left to his opponent, John McCain—whose own past judgments on foreign policy demand scrutiny—to declare right away the sort of thing that might have come naturally to previous generations of liberal Democrats (let alone to a conservative Republican): that "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory." Beyond the matter of experience, beyond how thoroughly the two candidates had thought through the situation, the difference highlighted how Obama still lacks a comprehensive vision of international politics.

Can Obama, who lost the large industrial states in the primaries, deal with a troubled economy and become the standard bearer for the working and middle classes—the historic core of the Democratic Party that the last two Democratic candidates lost? Can the inexperienced candidate persuasively outline a new foreign policy that addresses the quagmires left by the Bush administration and faces the challenges of terrorism and a resurgent Russia? Can the less-than-one-term senator become the master of the Congress and enact goals such as universal health care that have eluded Democratic presidents since Truman? On these fundamental questions may hang the fate of Obama's candidacy. In the absence of a compelling record, set speeches, even with the most stirring words, will not resolve these matters. And until he resolves them, Obama will remain the most unformed candidate in the modern history of presidential politics.

Yeah, I read this as well. All in all I thought it was a pretty good read and brought up some good points about the substance vs. style debate, although Wilentz isn't the most objective historian out there, to say the least (big-time Clinton backer). He's said some other things about Obama (not in here) that are completely offbase in my opinion. And while I'm not W's biggest fan, Wilentz's more prominent pieces on Bush aren't even worth your time.

FWIW, he has a cover story in the current edition of Rolling Stone on the fall of the GOP under Bush.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Yeah, I read this as well. All in all I thought it was a pretty good read and brought up some good points about the substance vs. style debate, although Wilentz isn't the most objective historian out there, to say the least (big-time Clinton backer). He's said some other things about Obama (not in here) that are completely offbase in my opinion. And while I'm not W's biggest fan, Wilentz's more prominent pieces on Bush aren't even worth your time.

FWIW, he has a cover story in the current edition of Rolling Stone on the fall of the GOP under Bush.

Saw the Rolling Stone article as well and I agree that his work, especially in regards to Bush, is severely slanted.

His new book, however, does praise Reagan quite a bit and place him amongst the greatest Presidents. That's something Wilentz likely never would have seen himself doing 20 years ago.

The lesson? Sometimes it takes time to truly assess a Presidency, especially when the President is viewed unfavorably or divisively. Harry Truman, for instance, was extremely unpopular when he left office and is not viewed very favorably.

Party lines blur as history moves on and we view the President from afar. Most will acknowledge what a horrible term in office Jimmy Carter had. Reagan was viewed more negatively when he left office and now is looked at quite positively.

[BadBecks]

I'm pretty much not undecided. Both major candidates scare me, and unless one does something to really scare me, I'm either sitting out or wasting my vote on Bob Barr. I just don't see how either one is better than the other.

Good for you (not being sarcastic). I know and understand that everyone has a right to vote, but if you are undecided or uneducated than I'd feel better if you sat it out and not canceled out someone's vote who is voting with a strong conviction one way or the other.

It pisses me off to see uninformed people voting merely because they have the right and/or because Puffy told them they only have one other option (to die).

Since this is the "No Holds Barred" portion of the board, I'll lead off with "go fuck yourself."

People have opinions good and bad about Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin. It's just the way it is. After all, the Indie vote is probably as large as its ever been. Deal with it.

[Bayou Tribe]

Since this is the "No Holds Barred" portion of the board, I'll lead off with "go fuck yourself."

Well played

And also, I'm not referring to the educated indie vote in my post. If you have genuine feelings and/or opinions that sway you towards either side and you feel strongly enough about it -- go vote. That's not the population I had directed it towards.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Uh Oh Spaghetti-Os.

Report: McCain Rips Bush in Woodward Book

I wonder if Obama's camp will attempt to get the Justice Dept. to prevent Woodward's book from hitting the shelves. Obama's campaign is determined to run on the very tired McCain=Bush line. More power to them. Most Americans know that McCain is a different beast.

McCain had a good speech tonight, better than I thought he had in him. He showed that he understood American problems and played on his record of never dancing to the beat of Washington's drum. He called out the Republicans for abandoning their principles - a wonderful thing for him to do that many of us have been saying for several years now. He distanced himself from Bush and contrasted himself with Obama.

His personal story of his transformation in Vietnam was moving and his final appeal sent shivers down my spine.

McCain's call to personal responsibility and to service was amazing - and him talking over the crowd's cheers at the end, persevering in his message was bone chilling to me.

McCain has stolen the Democrats talking points. He's believable on change. He's also believable as someone who truly fights for us. The hardcore Bush haters and lefties (like the Code Pink whackjobs or the anti-war "vet" - maybe he is a veteran, but a lot of those guys are liars) will never be convinced, but they are not willing to work across the aisle and actually fight for change anyways.

McCain did a good job tonight with something that he really isn't great out. He's much better with a microphone in hand, taking questions and answering on the fly. He did well tonight and delivered the best speech I can ever remember him delivering. I think he also opened the window for Republicans by admitting our failings. That could go a long way.

I also thought that Obama appearing on O'Reilly was a bit tacky. McCain didn't try to do anything to take away from Obama's spotlight last week and made a classy ad that congratulated Obama. I have yet to see an Obama ad doing the same even though his campaign said they'd do the same this week. I hope they follow through and show some class in return, though the new reports are suggesting that Obama is running out of money and that the contributions are coming in slower than the money is leaving. Maybe he can't afford to pay for an ad to congratulate his opponent? He may end up regretting going back on his promise to go with public funding. Seems to me that Obama also wanted to try to take some steam off of McCain's appearance by going to O'Reilly. The opposing candidate generally avoids getting into the spotlight when their opponent is about to accept their nomination.

[/url]