Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Daily Tracking (8/25-27)


Gallup Poll
8/25-27/08; 2,723 RV, 2%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews

National
Obama 48, McCain 42

Also
"Obama Still Lags McCain as Leader, Commander in Chief"


Rasmussen Reports
8/25-27/08; 3,000 LV, 2%
Mode: IVR

National
McCain 47, Obama 47

Also
"74% of Democrats Say Convention Has Unified Them"

 

Comments

I posted this on the other thread, but it really belongs here. (You never know if there will be a daily tracking blog post.)

I expect that tomorrow we'll see an even larger Obama margin in the Gallup daily tracking poll. The trailing end of the current three-day average was a particularly good day of polling for McCain. If today's polling is simply in-line with the last two-month average, the Obama margin should increase tomorrow.

Is this a convention bounce or a consequence of a statistical outlier from two days ago? We'll never really know, but I am sure that the Gallup writeup and the punditry world will frame it as a bounce since that is the storyline they expect.

____________________

Uri:

Does anyone know why the Gallup poll has been more mercurial than Rasmussen in recent weeks?

Even though it's a republican pollster, Ras had pretty much the same results for a while now, shifting maybe a percentage or two a day.

Gallup, on the other hand, keeps jumping around.

Could this be due to the RV/LV difference?

Does anyone know if the convention had increased the proportion of LVs among RVs? (e.g., Hillary dissenters?)

By the way, I'm not impressed by the number of "unified democrats". First, I don't understand the use of past tense for an event that was halfway through when they were done polling. Second, 74% would seem to be the same margin that Obama had among democrats prior to the convention.

BTW: I'm wondering how affected Obama's ratings are going to be by the last round of NFL preseason games that are taking place tonight. I think I can guess the impact here in Pittsburgh.

____________________

brambster:

The 2% MoE has failed at least one of these two polls. Anyone have any questions about which one? I don't have any doubts.

____________________

mirrorball:

I have a hard time thinking the preseason games will have much of an impact. I think his speech is scheduled to start right about the time most of those games are ending (when the third stringers are in).

I think that 74% number is misleading, as it represents the percentage of Dems who think the convention has unified them (only 14% said it hasn't, so 12% undecided?), rather than the percentage who say they will vote for Obama. And 86% of Dems said Hillary Clinton's speech helped Obama.

But without more data, hard to say from this what the actual Dem support for Obama is right now.

____________________

brambster:

@ Michael

No doubt about it that it will go up even more. The trackers won't include a full representation of the full convention until Sunday's results are released. What Gallup showed today included one day before the convention, the first day with Michelle Obama's speech, and then the second day with Hillary Clinton's speech. The call-backs also haven't had a chance to catch up fully with the later two days, so even if the landscape stayed even, the results would likely still surge more.

I'm surprised at how much movement these last two days have shown, but that's likely because I underestimated how pivotal it was for Hillary to strongly endorse Obama, and how good of a job that she did. It was a great speech, and I doubt she could have done any more at this point than she did.

The Republicans have been playing the game of over-expectations again claiming that they expected a 15 point bounce, just so they could claim he underperformed later, but I'm starting to think that it is within the realm of possibilities, and that would be startling if it did happen.

____________________

Michael:

Brambster:

Read the rteporting on the Ras site, they're seeing the same trend as Gallup is per the write up. Apparently, their McCain numbers at the beginning of the three-day period must have been a larger spread than Gallup, which is holding their 3-day average to a tie for now. From the write up, I would expect their data to be mirroring Gallup, just lagging a day.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows hints of a modest convention bounce building for Barack Obama. "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

____________________

sjt22:

I wouldn't worry too much about the preseason games and viewing the speech. Its the 4th game for every team, when 90% of the starters will not play and most of the game will be played by camp fodder guys who will be cut before Sunday.

If anything, I'd worry about the kickoff of the college football season, which is tonight, with multiple games scheduled for the same time slot. Then again, anyone who really wants to see the speech will see it. I know my picture-in-picture function will be in use.

____________________

flaming_goat:

Continuing on the football issue, I think that the Republican convention might take a much bigger hit from the start of football season as the first regular season NFL game is next Thursday night (Washington at NY Giants.) While NY is obviously not in play there might be some effect on the viewership in the Virginia area (though as sjt22 said, anyone who really wants to see it will.)

____________________

player:

Concerning the speech tonight, it brings up a catch phrase from the 80s used by democrat candidate Walter Mondale on Gary Hart. "Wheres the Beef". This is what Obama has to answer. Of course, Gary Hart was the John Edwards of that time, extra martial affair and all. As I recall Jessie Jackson came up with " where is the grits and gravy?"

____________________

BarackO'Clinton:

Any data yet on Obama improving his support among Democrats? If he can improve from his current 75-78% to 85-88% then he wins the election.

____________________

Allen:

> Does anyone know why the Gallup poll has been more mercurial than Rasmussen in recent weeks?

Rasmussen weights by party id, which tends to filter out statistical noise, but can also mask real changes in opinion. According to Nate at 538, weighting by party id can mask a convention bounce since it removes the short term effect of everyone who changes their responses from independent or republican to democrat (or vice-versa)

It could be that Gallup is showing an actual convention bounce, while Rasmussen has erased the bounce due to their weighting by party id.

____________________

KipTin:

Do you actually think that people are watching these conventions? It ain't the Olympics or football. Normal people do not have the time and energy nor patience for SOS political speeches. So far I have only tuned in for Hillary's and Bill's speeches because those speeches counted. Otherwise... BORING.

____________________

sjt22:

@KipTin

The ratings show that 22 million watched on Monday, and another 26 million watched Hillary on Tuesday. Thats a roughly 20% increase from the DNC in 2004. I'd expect a huge number to tune in for Obama's speech tonight. Not to mention all the internet and media coverage of the events which trickles out to people who don't actually watch.

____________________

SCHILL24:

Anyway this poll is a big one day bounce for Obama, if we look at the last three days average of 44%, Obama must have had a 56% polling yesterday, and if it stays, tomorrow, the poll might finally cross 50% by going up to 52% or more. That will be a great cushion before the RNC assaults starts next week.

____________________

thoughtful:

I called today the Michelle bounce, tomorrow we should see a bigger Hillary bounce, an even bigger Bill bounce at the weekend.

I warned my Republican friends to be careful with what they wished for when they came up with the 15% Rick Generic number.

The critical stat is the McCain to Obama - Democrat switches and then the Indies. Particularly women!

Obama could wrap the whole thing up to-night subject to not screwing up in the debates.
There are a lot of undecided very open to persuasion.

It might just get extremely vitriolic from next week and even desperate.

____________________

BarackO'Clinton:

And McCain gives his speech the same night as the NFL season opener. LOL. Way to plan ahead, Mr. In-Touch with the Average American Voter.

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

echoing what some have already posted on, I've been keeping track of what each individual day's polling must have been, roughly, based on the actual 3-day rolling averages.

Based on this, yesterday, in Gallup the poll was likely 53-40, and in Rasmussen (w/ leaners) it was likely 51-45, both of which seem reasonable. Rasmussen is a little less fluid with Party ID, and pressing leaners.

Either way, as some posters have commented, tomorrow's results will exhibit the big bounce, 10 pts in Gallup and 5 pts in Rasmussen, as long as tonight's numbers keep with yesterdays....

____________________

mirrorball:

I'd say the NFL is less of a problem for McCain and the RNC. I think a bigger problem could be if Hurricane Gustav hits land along the Gulf Coast early next week. (It's now a tropical storm but predicted to strengthen to a hurricane.) Fox News is reporting that President Bush may not speak on Monday and instead focus on the federal response to Gustav. I'm sure the cable nets are gonna go bonkers with this one because of the timing. Could dilute coverage of the first couple of nights of the RNC.

____________________

Uri:

@mirrorball: Except that for the Republicans it is EXTREMELY convenient if Bush has a reason not to be at the convention.

____________________

BarackO'Clinton:

Agree with Uri. The one place Democrats want Bush to be next week is smack dab in the middle of the RNC.

____________________

Uri:

@sjt22: I would say that 26mil viewers in real time is not that much considering that 36mil dems voted in the elections, and a lot of indeps and republicans are supposed to tune in.

____________________

player:

...And away we go to the land of OZ. Step right up folks for the one and only...hurry,hurry,hurry get your tickets here.

____________________

TR in VA:

More BS from the Obama camp... they said we dont not expect ANY bounce from this convention.... does ANYONE really believe that??

6 points/ Big deal... 12? big deal

Obama cant hold it b/c he can be roleld bullied and slammed. Just ask the clintons

____________________

brambster:

@ Michael McDonald

I just read the Rasmussen write up and it seemed to fall short of suggesting a bounce as big as Gallup, though they are clearly expecting some form of a bounce to show.

Seems that Nate of 538 beat me to the conventional wisdom argument that Rasmussen's party ID weighting will likely under-poll the bounce as effective conventions, and especially one with a dissatisfied runner up candidate that moved to strongly and effectively support the nominee, will surely result in an immediate change in party identity. The contra argument might be that this will level out over time, but polls aren't meant to predict the future, just the present, and Rasmussen will surely under poll even worse than their house effects bias suggests.

I don't think things could be going any better for the Democrats right now. I wonder if the Republicans want to spend their own convention and the days leading up to it just simply trying to talk down it's effectiveness because they need to sell their own agenda too, and it won't look good, and the media won't be buying it (as much as they typically do).

____________________

cinnamonape:

It's been pretty flat 45% for almost a week until the McCain slight shift upward. At that time some analysts suggested it meant the last day of polling in the 44%O - 46% Mc was much larger.

But now what?

Lemme see

45+44+x/3 =48 x=55% Obama on final day
(Day 1 of the Convention)
45+46+y = 42 y =35%McCain on final day of poll.

And if it's true that McCain actually had higher and Obama lower results in the last day of the three day polling period...that means it's a huge "bounce".

____________________

Buch:

What are the odd?

OBAMA - BIDEN

Very close words to

OSAMA - BINLADEN

____________________

Publius:

Obama's bounce should be much larger than the McCain counter-bounce simply because he will be doing better with his base in future polls. Plus, I think this GOP strategy of painting Obama as a witless celebrity will ultimately fail. McCain only wishes he could get 20,000 in Berlin and 75,000 in any American stadium. He's simply not as popular and I can't see him winning over people with ideas that have been around since Reagan.

If Obama goes up 10-12% after this week, McCain will need to knock it down to 3 after Minneapolis.

____________________

sjt22:

@ Uri

The convention ratings are up 20% from 2004. Seems like a good result for the Democrats to me. Remember that there are about 100 million voters. About half would never vote for Obama, and of the rest probably 80% are locked up, so its just the remainder that they are trying to appeal to. Thats less than 26 million.

____________________

DocnTN:

@Buch

What are the odds?

Buch- Bush

Very close to complete moron

____________________

brambster:

LOL DocnTN!!!

Another funny thing. I just visited my neighbor for a moment and the convention came up. Her friend was over visiting too and she indicated that she might have voted for Hillary...then she said that Obama's problem was that he was an "Islam". She kept looking to my neighbor and I for confirmation and I said that she was mistaken, that it was just one of those Internet rumors. She asked me if I was positive, then if I was 100% positive...then she got going, picked up her keys and stumbled outside to drive home drunk.

What a shame it is to see such people have a say in who we elect.

____________________

KipTin:

Apparently, brambster believes in "means" testing for voting. Again, anyone who believes that Obama is Muslim was probably not going to vote for him anyway. (So if this lady was that drunk, why did you let her drive away?)

____________________

brambster:

Ok, it's my fault that this drunk bigot drove her car...

I passed quite a few hints, but as someone that I didn't know, and someone that lacked so much common sense, what do you think would happen if I stood in front of the door?

It's great that everyone can vote. It's sad that bigots like this all vote Republican.

____________________

marctx:

Obama and Britney Spears put on a good show tonight. Why did he whine about the Britney ad then hire Britney's crew to create the "Temple of Obama"?

____________________

marctx:

I give up. I have to concede to all the doubters. Anyone that says Obama is not a "rock star". you are wrong. Obama is the biggist "rock star" on the planet.

____________________

brambster:

Damn........it could not have been any better than that. It sets a new standard, and I truly hope it sticks.

____________________

Uri:

It was so incredibly fascistic. One could almost hear "Wir gehoeren dir!".

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

marctx you seem to be doubleposting across different threads. I hope you're not an AIMbot :p

____________________

thoughtful:

When you have Fox and MSM commentators knocked out with Obama you know something special is happening.

Could be 20 point lead by Monday's trackers, My feel is that he will run AHEAD of the generic Democratic vote.

History guys,

____________________

marctx:

Sorry Andy. I double posted cuz I don't want anyone to miss my support for Obama. The pundits set the bar at Obama's rockstar status. He exceeded that, he achieved messiah status with this speech.

____________________

saywhat90:

it is sad that someone so blinded by hate(marctx) wouls not give credit where credit is due. i would do that for john mccain if he gives a great speech.

____________________

mirrorball:

And Goodwin's law makes it to Pollster. Thanks, Uri!

____________________

Stillow:

It was a great speech. I will be shocked if there is not a large bounce out of this convention. It was the same liberal speech I've heard since 1984, but the delivery was masterful and for the first time a liberal executed this speech perfectly. I only wish he governed the way he talks. Much of it was just words, no specifics. If my employer doesn't give me health care, the g'ment will, the same that Congress gets? Well the first thing that will happen is all comapnies will drop there health coverage and we'll all end up on the g'ment system, which of cours ethere's no possible way of paying for it without massive taxation on "everyone" not just 5% of us. All he is proposing is replacing my premium with a tax....
So from my perspective it was all words, no meat to it, the same speech we've heard for 25 years. But politcally very effective. People who are easily taken by delivery will be swayed.
Again I will say, the Dems defiantely have the momentum. McCain certainly has his work cut out for him.
All in all, great speech, great delivery. But for me, its the same thing I've heard for 25 years, but you guys finally found someone who can deliver the speech in a beleivable way. The guy is defaintely up htere with Reagan when it comes to communicating.

____________________

Uri:

@mirrorball:

Heh :) Good to see someone remembers that one.

Though in my case I would say it is more of a genetic memory... There's a very famous imagery that I've been exposed to many times over the years of Hitler speaking in huge stadiums. Somehow that connection is imbued in me, and the first time I heard about the Invesco field idea, that image popped to my head.

Now to clarify again: Obama is not Hitler, etc. etc., obviously.

However, I do believe that this kind of huge insane crowd, a huge stage with two huge screens with a very prominent symbol on them, the person speaking in the middle... Leni Riefenstahl could not have orchestrated that better.

I connect American politics with those big speeches in those closed off "Cube Gardens" with the confetti and state flags and all, that is the imagery. This just didn't connect. It's just the wrong imagery for the wrong nation.

Actually, it was a very good speech. After all, that's what he's known for. What I don't understand was why he looked so underwhelmed when it was over. It's like as soon as he stopped speaking he looked tired, turned off almost. I can't imagine how giving the speech of a lifetime would affect me, so maybe it is the feeling that you've achieved the greatest moment of your life.

Either way, it's not like McCain ever had a chance.

____________________

Uri:

Another striking thing was seeing the contrast in speech delivery skills between Obama and Gore. I *adore* Al Gore, but like me, he's more the Powerpoint presentation guy than the class president.

____________________

mirrorball:

@Uri: yeah, I hear ya. But on some level I don't get it. Honestly -- and I'm not a big idealouge, seriously -- even though I'm nowhere near old enough to have seen it or remember it, the first thing that came to my mind when I heard about the Mile High Stadium idea was Kennedy's speech at the Los Angeles Coliseum.
But maybe stadium speeches are yet another thing Hitler ruined for the rest of us, along with short mustaches and Volkswagens.

____________________

brambster:

You know Uri, I just don't get how you think!

You don't engage the general population to be more involved in their country, community and their family, and practice individual responsibility by preaching Fascism. You don't strive to improve America's standing and cooperation in the world by exercising your military might. You don't preach unity among Americans by questioning the patriotism of your opponents. In fact, you do just the opposite!

I've always hoped that we were too smart to fall for that as a country, and finally I do believe we are.

Wake up and wash that garbage out of your head!

____________________

Uri:

@brambster: I don't recall preaching fascism, military might, or questioning Obama's patriotism. I certainly don't say Obama's a Muslim and I honestly don't think anybody does; that part is a media and a left fiction.

(Though admittedly, he's endorsed by Jimmy Carter, that's a lot worse... :)

All I expressed was distaste for the style of delivery and venue. Like mirrorball said, his first image was JFK, which is probably one of the greatest things about growing in the US. I'm from across the ocean, so my first image was slightly different.

In the end, this was still speechmaking, and I call BS on certain things he said.

For example, eliminate "capital gains tax on startups". When a startup sells for billions, it's the venture capitalists that gain the most, not us programmers in the trenches who get 1% of 1%. That sounds a lot like McCain's top-down economics.


____________________

saywhat90:

what sense does it make trying to make having a large crow seem scccaaaarrrry. wooooo. it doesnt. this is another weak excuse. just as weak as the celebrity issue. he is well liked by many people so thats a bad thing. yeah like it was a bad thing for bush when americans said that one reason they voted for him was because he was a guy i d like to hang out and have a beer with. yeah beware the evil scary large crowd.

____________________

brambster:

Uri et al.,

Make no mistake about it, this was a political speech, and one at the Democratic convention, but I think it was clear that this isn't about parsing words or dwelling on divisive single issues, it's about realigning not just our leadership, but our entire direction as a country. This was historic not for how it was presented or who presented it, but for what it will become.

And since this is Pollster...this won't be a bounce, it will be a trounce. It's over. No one's even going to be paying attention to colorful maps any more.

____________________

player:

@Stillow:
I thought the speech was poorly written and he had a horrible time trying to deliver it. There wasn't really any connection with the audience. Perhaps the audience was too large. He was way too critical of McCain. He mentioned McCain's name more than anyone. It was like free advertising for McCain. This wasn't a night to go on the attack against McCain. This was a historic night. He was suppose to be positive and give the troops some marching energy. He failed in that category. Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just use to hearing him on a different frequency that he didn't use tonight. I thought that is was more like a plain Jane Biden speech than anything else. Perhaps there will be more speeches like this in the future. If so,the Hollywood crowds will drift away.

____________________

Stillow:

@brambster

Be careful, don't confuse a great speech with actionale ideas. There was nothing new in this speech, its the same exact liberal talking points that have been brought to the population for decades. Only this time it was delivered in a acceptable way. What your side needs to do now is not get arrogant and cocky or McCain will sneak it right away from you. By default people resist larger g'ment control over their lives....Obama needs to keep the sales pitch going. Words can get you to the door, but you still have to walk thru it. But if you guys get arrogant most will beging to just say "Same ole' liberal stuff, just in a new suit"

____________________

brambster:

@player

"Perhaps I'm wrong."

Perhaps you are...

____________________

Stillow:

@player

Well it definatley was a lberal talking points speech, there's no question about that. He brought up every victim group you can think of. But it was really the first tie I have seen liberalism put forth in a acceptable fashion to your novice viewer.
I do agree though, he was to negative on McCain, that should have been done out on the stump....we'll just have to wait and see. I liked ht edelivery, the content however was just the same old stuff.

____________________

Uri:

@brambster: I don't think this makes a difference. Obama was going to win and he is going to win. Just like it was obvious he was going to win the primaries on Super Tuesday and we all kept at it for the next three months.

Face it, we're political junkies and poll junkies, and we only get our fix every four years.

After this, it's four years (and practically eight) of humdrum congressional approval ratings and reactions to state of the unions address. So let's enjoy our colorful maps while we still can.

____________________

Uri:

@saywhat90: I didn't say it wasn't effective. I just said that to me, coming from a different culture, it was scary because it comes together with things like the symbolic fake roll call that rewrites history (where states that HRC won voted for Obama), and the attacks on WGN for daring to mention Ayers. Look up "Soviet elections".

You have to agree with me that if Dick Cheney was running for president and was doing these three things above, you would be crying murder.

____________________

player:

@Stillow:
I would almost guess that he will start sounding more like Joe Biden on the trail. College students won't like this much. I'll bet that they didn't care for his speech tonight. So he might appeal to more blue collar voters, but he will probably lose the campus classroom voters. I don't see him going back up to the mountain anytime soon.

____________________

brambster:

@Uri

"I just said that to me, coming from a different culture, it was scary because it comes together with things like the symbolic fake roll call that rewrites history (where states that HRC won voted for Obama), and the attacks on WGN for daring to mention Ayers. Look up "Soviet elections"."

Again, this is really just the opposite. It used to be that both women and African-Americans couldn't vote, and now they campaigned for votes against one another and both could have won. It used to be that nominees were decided by an exclusive group of delegates, and now those delegates are chosen based on the votes of people in caucuses and primaries (some of them are even open to non-party members). It used to be, and not that long ago, than the president of this country was effectively determined by a perfect ideological split of a group of just 9 men and women where the majority of which substituted their own judgment instead of attempting to determine the intent of millions of voters in a state.

I really fail to see how just 40 years after the civil rights act, a man of mixed race could possibly represent Fascism. It is EXACTLY the opposite.

Maybe what you are not used to seeing is how things swing back from the brink for the good without a bloody revolution or military invasion. I'm pretty sure this is what that looks like. No doubt it isn't all good, but it will surely be better.

____________________

Uri:

@brambster: Once again, I raised fascism because of the style of presentation, the thuggish tactics, the rewriting of history, and the stifling of dissent. I don't see why you are bringing race into it.

Look, let's not argue about it. I can be cynical and say that I know you guys are in love with the idea that after 250 years your country finally gets right what the countries you guys came from got much faster... Heck, look how many European and Asian countries already had female PMs in a shorter timespan.

Since you brought up race, let me say that I think that it is great that an african american can get elected president. I do think that it is very sad that this is actually an issue.

It is also sad that because of this the election becomes not about electing a good president, but about demonstrating the breaking of the "race ceiling". Everything (and in particular the media with it's historic narrative) focuses on Nov 4 and not on the eight years that follow.

Many people will vote against him because he's black, and even more people will vote for him because he is black. His color should not be an issue. I have to agree with Ferraro that what got the attention for him was his race and his background, but that with his limited credentials he may not have made it to where he did had he been a white Harvard graduate like everyone else in the Senate.

Come November 5, you can be proud of your country, but you're still going to be stuck with an African American version of John Edwards.

____________________

saywhat90:

@uri
wrong iwould be saying uh oh looks like the dems are in trouble. i would say if he can draw a crowd like that then what will the elections be like. that s what i would say if cheney drew crowd sizes like that. unlike you i would give credit where credit is due. if i have a problem with something it usually issued. no matter who does it the celebrity large crowd thing is childish and silly. even john mccain has celebrity status.because all celebrity means is u are well known. it is the one of the reason why this election is close. there is nothing wrong with being popular. because the truth is it does win elections. as far as the ayers issue. are you saying that he doesnt have the right to counter any thing that may be a smear on his character.

____________________

Uri:

@brambster: Just to clarify, I do not come from a country where one needs bloody revolutions or military invasions for change. We have had significant changes of power occurring frequently (maybe too frequently) in the old democratic way.

I could also argue, that the biggest change in your country (which is admittedly my country now) didn't come from an orderly democratic process of unity but rather from a fairly bloody civil war, and that having visited the South, I'm not even sure things really have changed this much.

____________________

saywhat90:

@uri

but if he was a white yale graduate i think he would have made it in. oh wait someone did that already.

____________________

Stillow:

@saywhat90

Bringing up Ayers is not a smear of Obama's character, its a fact that he hung out with this guy. An eexplanation to the american people is required when you hang ut with a known terrorist who has bombed american bildings. I assure you that if McCain was hanging out with a KKK members, goign to his house, etc, you guys on the left would make a "huge" deal about it and demand an explantion. So its not a smear to point out who ones associates with...who you hang around with gives an inside view of who you are as a person too....he will need to address the Ayers issue before this election is over. Words mean nothing if your actions go against what you say.

____________________

Uri:

@saywhat90: You're right, he gave a great speech yesterday and his wife gave a great speech the day before ;) Or did you mean someone else?

____________________

Uri:

@Stillow: I don't think the Ayers thing has any benefit for the republicans by itself. If the Republicans are smart, they will try to frame Obama as extremely liberal and pro-islamic (which is easy considering his strongest supporters), and then create some sort of "Obama's ties to extreme leftists and other commie traitors" through the ages. In that context, Ayers can be used to show a pattern.

Without some more consistent context, I doubt that the vast majority of voters have any understanding of who Ayers is, what the context was, etc. Ok, so it's some guy that bombed the pentagon or somthing. But isn't the pentagon still there? etc. I know who Ayers is and the swiftboating bored me to hell. At least they should run some speeches by Ayers or something. Some Wright-style soundbytes.

Speaking of which, was Wright in the audience yesterday?

____________________

saywhat90:

@player

how would you come to that conclusion? there was nothing in his speech that would turn off college voters. first defended himself from attacks on his character. he main questioned mccain on issues.never once did he question mccains love for country nor did he say that mccain wasnt a good man or that he didnt serve this great country of ours. he was more gracious to mccain then mccain has ever been to him.

____________________

Stillow:

@saywhat90

Again, Obama's actions are what spawned questions about his character. His associations with Ayers and Wright for example. Two people who clearly hate this country, yet he chose freely to hang out with these people. So naturally, one's gut reflex is to ask, why would you do that? Its legit to bring up those points until Obama clearly answers the question why. Its easy to say I love this country, but then when you walk out the door to hang out with anti-american radicals, then the question of why becomes legit. I don't see McCain hanging out with anti americans, so its much more difficult to question his character on that front. I don't see how logically you can disagree.

____________________

player:

@saywhat90:
This is a catchy name. Did you pattern it after Charles Barkley? Anyhow, there was no intellectual stimulus in this speech. It was basically plain and ordinary prose. The news people report that it was planned that way.

____________________

saywhat90:

@stillow

was again you are mistaken. if mccain hung out with a former kkk member i wouldnt care. the key here is former terrorist. meaning the past.and lets see wasnt robert byrd a former member of the kkk. yet he was welcome to the democratic party without judgement. because once again that was his past. he s not that person. so no i would not begrudge someone of their past. i mean i m not running wondering what really happened about the keating 5. i mean mccain was friend with mr.keating. so i should be concerned they might make mccain a crook too. so maybe i should questions mccains judgement. oh wait that was in the past . oh then nevermind. past things dont concern me. but current issues and policies do. the guilty by association thing is so over the top.

____________________

brambster:

@Uri

As I said before, this was historic not for how it was presented or who presented it, but for what it will become. Obama's race is not a net advantage in any way. His advantage is his ability to communicate his message and provide encouragement and optimism to those that would support him. He just happens to be mixed race (or Black, whatever you prefer).

What I am most encouraged by is his ability to communicate the inequity of trickle-down economics. He doesn't present it as class warfare, he presents it as it should be. Money breeds power, and there's nothing wrong with awarding those that work hard and contribute back to the country and the country's economy in the place of what we have been doing.

Surely he could squander this, and events might not be so kind to the types of changes he wants to bring. He will surely make some mistakes, but hopefully not too many. Change can be scary, but what's scarier to me is not even trying.

Bill Clinton had unbelievable political skills, but in a very different way. Clinton was so incredibly calculated that he could out maneuver his opponents. Obama on the other hand has shown incredible restraint, confidence and persistence. Obama sets his message, his style, and he doesn't let others dictate his timing. He believes that if you do the right thing, things will work out, not by chance but with strength of message and the ability to deliver that message effectively. When supporters last year started warning him that he had to go on the attack, he resisted and stayed primarily on message running as the best agent of change while Hillary was merely running against Republicans. When the Hillary campaign focused on big delegate/big name states, Obama got the ground game running and exploited his strengths with enthusiastic Democrats and other voters by picking up virtually all of the caucuses. When Obama then won 13 contests in a row and Hillary's campaign not only failed to recognize their destiny, but also turned semi-nuclear, Obama just let it play out knowing that it was a fight that wasn't worth fighting. He gave Hillary all the space she needed, and she took advantage of every bit of slack she got. Now when Republicans attack, and attack and attack, and people again mock him and call him Obambi, he waits for the appropriate time instead of changing his regular message with drivel, then turns it back at them, not by throwing his own mud, but by showing the hypocrisy of what they claim, and ends up coming out the bigger man. Every step of the way it amazes me how good things turn out for him, and it's not luck. He just gets it. I believe this is a good sign for how he would govern too. Consensus is a better way to go, and it's better to convince than to trick for force your way there. If he fails, it will be his fault because he has the skill to get things done.

____________________

Stillow:

@saywhat90

That's a pretty weak respone. Ayers has never repented, in fact he still says he didn't do enough damage. Wrights insane anti american comments are within the last couple years. And Obama hangs out with these people and considers them freinds. I think that says a lot about his character. McCains keating association is also valid. The dems plan ot bring up keating after the conventions.
If I tell you I hate ice cream, then go to baskin robins, soemthing doesn't add up. Obama will need to address his associations. The issue will resinate with very patriotic americans, a lot of whom are blue collar workers in the midwest and rust belt. Your actions have to backup your words. I agree with you that if someone has aplogized for previous actions in there life and clai to be a changed man, you should give himthe benefit fo the doubt, but ayers still to this day wishes he could do more damage and wright's comments are all recent. Obama has been freinds with both men in very reent times. So the criticism is valid.

____________________

saywhat90:

@stillow

the ayers issue is a non-issue period.is that a strong enough response for you. ayers behaviour in the past is not obamas fault. just because someone is associated to someone it doesnt mean he will be like that person. my best friend is a republican. known him for 10 years. im not a republican. beside you dont know what kind of friendship obama and ayers have.friendly can mean alot of things. as far as wright is concerned. you dotn know what kind of person wright was in those 20 years. he may have just become a angry bitter black man in the past few years. is that obamas fault.

____________________

saywhat90:

the argument is pointless anyway because noone has proof that barack has done or said anything radical or anti-american.and before anyones tries to use them the bitter comments were never radical and what michelle obama is not a radical comment neither.

____________________

brambster:

@Stillow

As far as Wright goes, do you really think that this one radical nut is any worse than the right wing radical evangelical nuts that blame hurricanes on gays? McCain unapologetically went out of his way to court these nuts, and Obama went out of his way to avoid them as soon as it became an issue.

Do you really think that Ayres is an issue this election? You have to be at least 60 years old to remember that stuff. When I heard about Weather Underground, I was truly dumbfounded.

If you want to hear about real scary stuff, research G. W. Bush's associations with Adnan Khashoggi. Not only was Khashoggi a Saudi arms dealer with deep connections to the bin Laden family, he's the guy who's ponzi-scheme bank was used by Oliver North to move funds for Iran-Contra. He was also charged in association with the Marcos money laundering in the Philippines. He's the guy that was manipulating the stock price of a worthless Internet company for over a year until he cut and ran just one week after 9/11 and caused the biggest brokerage failure since the Great Depression by failing to deliver on $70 million in loaned stock. Then just 2 years later Richard Perl while still chairing a Pentagon advisory group was caught meeting with Khashoggi to discuss investments in defense companies. How does dubbya fit in to all of this? Well, Adnan Khashoggi's former American money guy was not just a fellow National Guard absentee flier in Bush's unit, he was Bush's partner in his first failed oil company. Bush Sr. also goes way back with this guy, and I barely touched the surface of the international fraud that this guy has been involved with.

Now if that isn't mainstream enough to make it to the media at large, what makes you think that Obama sharing a coffee with Ayres is newsworthy?

____________________

player:

This Ayers business has definitely got legs. I certainly remember them. They are from my generation. You also had the bank robbing, cop killing SLA group that kidnapped Patty Hearst. The black panthers were also a dangerous cop killing group at that time. Some of them are still around. I got drafted and went to war in Asia, and Ayers and company got drafted and declared war on the US instead. Carter's blanket pardon actually covered these criminals. This guy Ayers has got nine lives. People that never grew up in the 60s cannot really understand my generation. It is very scary and very complex. Obama's connection to Ayers seems to be academic. However, there could be more to it. The Daley machine has blocked inquires into the Ayers, Obama connection.

____________________

saywhat90:

if the ayers thing has legs it is severly limping

____________________

thoughtful:

@player

My goodness you are selective.

We are the same generation.But our memories are a little different.

With regards to last night: What we have had over the first 3 days was a game changer. What we had last night was a generational event of profound historic proportions.

@Stillow Last night Barrack Obama made a truly historic political speech, not liberal, not conservative but essentially an American speech.

The issue can be put simply as the renewal of the American Dream.

But within that renewal is the politics - how (Bush/Cheney)we as a nation got into the mess, that John McCain, paying great respect to his bravery and service, has nothing to offer except bluster and the politics of the past, McCain does not relate to the challenges that we have to overcome. Then, specifically what President Obama would do in socio-economic and foreign policy terms to make the renewal happen - a Neo-liberal agenda through adding the burden of social responsibility onto the individual. Happy Stillow!

This is where the game changing bounce becomes irreversible: Obama has laid claim as the protector, the guardian, the renewer of the American Dream and it is going to be impossible to budge his brand positioning. They have made the Obama family narrative the embodiment of that dream.

@player - forget about Ayres and Wright. Obama has got his brand positon - right on, pardon the intended 60's spun - pun!

He runs ahead of Rick Generic Democrat through to polling day.

____________________

DocnTN:

Just shows how desperate Fox news and friends are that they are hammering at the round-about connection with Ayers. If associations mattered, then the Bush family would never have been elected to office for all the shadowy connections they have.
Certainly, the convention could not have gone better. Now all Obama has to do is hold strong during the debates, which with his superior intellect should not present a problem. After that, its all in God's hands and our willingness to accept someone different.

____________________

Tybo:

thoughtful..
" Last night Barrack Obama made a truly historic political speech, not liberal, not conservative but essentially an American speech."

translation: "I'll give you everything you could possibly want, don't worry about paying for it! The other (rich) guy will"

____________________

Uri:

I am shocked by McCain's VP choice. Maybe Obama was right and he really "doesn't get it". The elections really are officially over.

Instead of picking Hutchinson, a pro-choice moderate, he went for the "hot hardcore republican" type that would not get him a single independent or democratic female voter. He gave up on former HRC supporters, etc.

Motivating the republican core was good enough in previous cycles, but not in this election.

____________________

Stillow:

@thoughtful

I just disagree. The speech was the same liberal content we always here, he just said it in a way that isn't such a turn off. Great speech, boring content.

I love the Palin pick....strategically, McCain really took the steam...everyone is talking about it.

____________________

marctx:

2008 is truly a historic year. We will have the first AA nominee and the first female vice president.

McCain/Palin 08 - Advance the woman's movement, Yes We Can

Write a poem about that Chris Matthews. Your Obama speech coverage was stupid.

____________________

Stillow:

@Uri

You are way off. Palin is a great choice. Not all women support killing babies, just to let you know.
I love the choice, I think women in general will like the choice, it stealing the spotlight away from Obama's speech. Friday belonged to obama, Saturday belongs to McCain.
It was a wildcard pick, a fresh face....a solid conservative woman.....

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Are we ready for this 44 year old person whom noone knows with 2 years of being a Governor to be president given McCain's age?

____________________

Stillow:

hahah, if the expereince argument is the ebst your side has, it will flop on your face. Since she has more expereince then the top of your ticket.

____________________

Uri:

@Stillow: How is Palin a great choice?

If you consider die-hard Hillary supporters as a target demographics for McCain (and a lot of them did not buy the Clinton's forced speeches), the main thing that the Obama people have been scaring them with is Roe vs. Wade.

I've stated my belief here before that I don't think McCain really is pro-life; he lacks the religious conviction to truly give a damn.

However, picking Palin is a deal-breaker to these women. Nothing pisses a real feminist more than a so-called "feminist for life".

Don't confuse the fact that we have people like Casey in the Senate for a battleground state like PA. He was elected as the "anyone but Santorum" vote.

It also looks really transparent that he just picked a woman. My personal guess is that he already gave up the elections and figured that he would make a historic statement with the second woman to ever be on a ticket (and the first Republican).

____________________

Uri:

@Andrew: At least she has *executive* exprerience, rather than campaigning experience. Obama's been so busy getting elected, he never actually got to do anything but campaign.

____________________

Stillow:

You guys who assumne all women like killing babies is your deal. Pro life odesn't equate to banning abortion.

And its a great choice because it overshadows Obama's speech, its exciting the right wing base.....its an energizing pick.....you guys keep slamming her, it will backfire.

____________________

marctx:

Yeah, I've never seen such excitement here in my office. People are excited and talking about.

She has executive experience and Obama doesn't. It's way more dangerous electing Obama, especially considering the big majority the democrats will have. You can REALLY expect change. Our entire culture and way of life will change. That's change you can be afraid of.

Hillary put 18m cracks in the glass ceiling, Palin will break it. Hillary will walk right through later.

McCain/Palin 08, Hillary/Byah 2012

____________________

Uri:

Stillow, I hate disagreeing with the one person here who shares my dislike for Obama, but Palin is officially against abortions, and wants to overturn RvW.

She also carried to term her child, knowing he has Down syndrome. So she at least practices what she preaches.

____________________

sjt22:

McCain has executive experience? Wait, he doesn't! So if Palin is so "experienced" maybe she should be the head of the ticket.

Get real, she was the mayor of a town of 9000, she has been for 18 months the governor of a state of 650K. This is "experience" that counts? If she's ready to be President, then Obama is more than qualified. Make up your minds.

____________________

Uri:

@sjt22: He had an army command post, and he did have enough years of legislative experience.

But the point is this: If the Republicans are smart, they would paint Biden and Obama as elitist and disconnected (which they are). Biden has been in the Senate since he was 29. Obama's been a "lawyer".

For a lot of middle class blue collar workers, she is as "real person" as one can be. Running a hellhole town in the middle of nowhere while you're having five kids and your husband is a fisherman... Hell, I can connect to that and I'm an elitist. Remember that part of Hillary's appeal was the perception that she understood (though never took part of) the "real life". Here you have someone who's still living them.

____________________

marctx:

In response to the Palin pick, the Obama campaign manages to insult small town America (again) and belittle the accomplishments of women (again). The Obama assault on women is about to get a fight back.

Mr. Obama, "the time to honor yourself is soon at an end". -Gladiator

Reform 2008

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

What'd Obama say that hurt your feelings marctx? Especially about women in response to Palin or are you just making stuff up as usual?

This is Obama's comment:

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said in a statement. “Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same.”

____________________

sjt22:

@ Marctx

How, exactly, did the Obama campaign do either of those things? All they said was "experience is off the table", which it should be given the lack of it on Palin's part. I'm sure she'd be a fine VP, but to tear down Obama and then nominate a VP with the exact same (only worse) weaknesses is grade A Republican Hypocrisy.

____________________

sjt22:

@ Uri

First, McCain was in the Navy, not the Army. Second, exactly how much legislative experience is "enough". Wait, don't answer, because I already know whatever answer you choose will but JUST a little more than what Obama has.

Finally, where the hell are you getting the Obama/Biden are a pair of elitists bs? Obama got this far because tens of millions of americans believe in him. Old, young, rich, poor, sea to shining sea. Are all these people elitists too? Is Joe Biden's daily Amtrak trip home from work to be with his family elitist?

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Palin doesn't know what VP does and thinks its unproductive lol.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12969.html

____________________

Uri:

@sjt22: I'm an academic and am surrounded by Academics. Obama is one too. We are elitists. Facts of life :)

Having a lot of people like you does not make you not an elitist. The queen of England was revered by millions, was she not elitist?

Obama is a high-paid lawyer, university professor, and eventually Washingon insider. When is the last time he bought a gallon of milk himself?

Joe Biden had been in the Senate for 30 years. He's been there since age 30. Did he ever hold a real job ? I heard all the stories about taking the train every day, but is he the kind of person who has to think about whether he can afford his latte in the morning?

She, on the other hand, represents the low middle class America. She went to a minor college on money from a beauty pageant, married the high school boyfriend, worked as a sports reporter and in fishing. All this while spawning five kids. If she ends up becoming president, that is going to be even more of the American dream than Obama. Don't underestimate that appeal in the soccer-mom crowd.

____________________

Uri:

@Andrew: So do most of the country.

Seriously, with the exception of Al Gore and Dick Cheney can you think of any VP that did anything?

____________________

brambster:

@Uri

How about Johnson who assumed the presidency? Johnson was also critical in helping Kennedy win the election by picking up Texas.

George H. Bush also picked Quail and actually lost support for that pick.

VP's do in fact count!

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

I can think of several presidents that died then their vice presidents took office. I do recall that's something notable vice presidents do.

But aside from that you can go to Jefferson, Adams, in helping create the country to Andrew Johnson balancing the Lincoln ticket for unity. Some VPs know how to do it.

____________________

mirrorball:

Uri: University lecturers (he was never a full professor) don't buy milk?

____________________

AJ:

I can't help but think that this a laughable pick. McCain needed a woman, so I guess any would do. Not only is she short on experience, but her background is absolutely average. So she went to a middle of the road college, graduated with a journalism degree, joined a PTA, had 5 kids and becam a mayor of a town of 9000 people. She got close to 250000 votes in her gubernatorial election, which is about how much Obama got from the city of Philadelphia in primaries.

I mean you can scream elitist as much as you want to, but I'd truly like my president to be extraordinary, intelligent, articulate and succesful in most competitive arenas that he or she chooses to participate in. I would like to be able to tell my kids to look up to someone who has created a movement and inspired millions of people.

____________________

SwingVote:

@Uri: Being a lawyer, being a senator, being a professor make Obama elite, not elitist. As a matter of fact, we need someone elite in the White House, not an ordinary, average Joe like Geeorge W. Bush. We need someone in the top 5% of the class, not bottom 5%.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Anyone excited for Biden v. Palin debates? :D

____________________

Uri:

@brambster, andrew: Like I said, "VPs". If they assume the presidency, they are obviously no longer VPs (hence I mentioned LBJ).

If she becomes president, it's going to be bad, but IMHO Obama being president is just as bad. It will be change though...

Anyway, something tells me that John McCain is going to be like Shimon Peres in Israel, who was considered too old when he ran against young Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, and is still alive and kicking and traveling (think I saw him at the Olympics) at 89.

@mirrorball: They buy milk, but I doubt they factor it into their daily food budget. It's not like he was an adjunct lecturer at the community college of of western ****hole.

@swingvote: Hillary was an elite but not an elitist. Obama is, except that now he's in the role of messiah and even Jesus needed his disciples.

____________________

player:

The republicans need to energize their base. This selection did it for them. I watched Bay Buchanan on CNN. She isn't a John McCain fan. However, she was almost jumping up and down with joy. To say that she was elated would be an understatement. If the GOP comes out and votes in November, Obama will have a difficult time winning. Republicans outnumber democrats.

____________________

Uri:

@AJ: I like those type of leaders, but I don't think they should be presidents and tainted in ruthless politics the way Obama was. Comparing Obama to MLK does disservice to MLK.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

McCain will have to worry about the reaction of female voters, male voters, and independents now.

____________________

DocnTN:

If McCain wants to pander to former Hillary supporters like myself by picking a woman, his choice is a complete slap in our faces. We wanted a COMPETENT woman in the White House, not a woefully unprepared rookie one heart-beat away from the most important position in the World. A complete move out of desperation and one that might just work for him, sadly enough.

Obama '08

____________________

SwingVote:

@uri:

This is from Cambridge dictionary.

elitism (noun): when things are organized for the benefit of a few people with special interests or abilities:


Doesn't it sound like McCain's and Bush's tax plan?

____________________

Uri:

@SwingVote: Sounds a lot like Obama's tax plan for Venture Capitalists who run startups too. I wonder why everyone in the Si Vi donating tons to his compaign.

____________________

player:

@swingvote:
Right out of websters dictionary. It also means SNOBBERY. That fits the Obama campaign to a T. Jessie Jackson verifies it.

____________________

KipTin:

Stupid... pandering to women would have been a move made by Obama because of Hillary. That is a Democratic party issue. Those women who say such do not even have a clue why so many women (and men) supported Hillary.

McCain choosing Sarah Palin is not pandering to women. Possibly to his social conservative base among who are many women... but not women per se. If you look at Palin's record, she is a reformer/maverick much in the same way that McCain is. And REFORM is McCain's message.

Why is Obamanation so shallow?

____________________

thoughtful:

Been travelling again, I thought after the Biden pick, women were in with a show.

Palin has saved us from Romney.

Palin is a genuine social conservative and does create difficulties for the Democrats. Obama needs the woman vote, Palin will p off pro-choice, but who knows!

People do vote for the top of the ticket. The question for McCain is this, Why is Sarah Palin best qualified to be President of the United States in event of your incapacity?

Desperate choice, but cynically he had no choice, as by using Sarah Palin its the only way he could possibly win.

I still think McCain is unelectable. The Obama campaign should have just sent over their congratulations, the MSM cartoonist and comedians will play her as Mrs Deeds goes to Washington.

____________________

KipTin:

The real question for voters is... Why is Obama best qualified to be President of the United States?

Even pro-choice cannot get "p off" that Sarah Palin and her husband chose to have their baby with Down's Syndrome. One can see that the whole family loves this little boy. Family values should know no political ideology.

____________________

KipTin:

I can see that John and Cindy McCain feel a strong connection to the Palins over and above politics. Cindy has a Masters in Special Ed and taught the disabled (e.g. Down Syndrome kids)at an Arizona high school. She even wrote an academic paper (which was published) on an associated therapy.

____________________

player:

@thoughful:
Keep up that optimism; you will probably need it. By everything I have read and seen today, the Obama nation is livid and depressed. They are attacking Palin from everywhere. however, she isn't Hillary Clinton who they did despicable things to and got away with. They will get it right back at them in short order. The right will stand with Sarah Palin.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Kiptin

18 milion people voted for Obama through his party's primary and has been endorsed by many generals, Secretaries of State and previous president. He has formulated comprehensive national policies.

There are certainly much more qualified people in the GOP. The womaqn unfortunately is being used, very sad, I hate this exploitation factor. Romney was the pick until Biden.

____________________

jradMIT:

This pick kind of demonstrates how McCain had no obvious choice. Romney was the best for the job. Good debater, lots of executive experience, good business guy, but unfortunately for him he is LDS and to the evangelicals not to mention most people in the US it is a bad thing. Also He and McCain were slinging mud all over each other in the primaries and personally McCain despises him. Pawlenty would be a yawn w/ no foreign policy experience and might get over powered by Biden in the debate. Palin fires up the base. She is a good portrait of a working mom. But I feel that the women she brings in will somewhat canceled out by the men who change their mind. Can she hold up in a debate with Biden?The two biggest knocks on here is that she is not an experienced campaigner, and that she has only been Governor for 18 months. This undercuts I think McCain's best line of attack on experience and accomplishments. Lastly, honestly does anyone in the lower 48 really give anything in Alaska any weight? The state has a population of 600k. Overall I think its the best move for McCain but its high risk, high reward.

____________________

Basil:

Killing babies is what bombs do. Then it's called collateral damage. Where's the sympathy for 100,000+ dead Iraqi men women and children who were victims of Bush's arrogance? Not to mention Vietnam.
I'm pro choice and I choose not to bomb more babies.

By the way, I think abortions stink , but criminalizing them stinks worse.

Palin is a great choice if elections are about who you'd like to have lunch with. Isn't that how Bush got elected? She really is attractive and smart. Who better to inquire after the health of the president?

____________________

thoughtful:

Does anybody seriously consider that Sarah Palin would have been picked, had Hillary been on the Dem ticket? Of course not!

Does any body realize how rich the goverment of Alaska is due to its energy income visavis the 600,000 people living there? It is very challenging to cut down on waste and cut down on states tax when your income from Oil quadruples.

So excuse me if I am unconvinced.

____________________

player:

I am convinced about Sarah Palin. She is the prototype 'American Girl'.

____________________

SwingVote:

@Uri: Obama gets big portion of his donations from people like you and me. McCain gets most of it from elites (i.e. people and special groups with power). McCain's tax plan benefits elites while Obama's plan benefits the ordinary people.

While McCain gets money (and support) from corporations, Obama gets money from employees of the corporations. That does not make him elitist.

____________________

thoughtful:

@player

I have absolutely no problem with Sarah Palin at all.

I have big problem with McCain, bigger now as he is a veteran exploiter of women.

____________________

jradMIT:

Player, Rasmussen has Dems with a +9 party ID advantage. I think the biggest selling point about Palin other than she is a woman, is that this controls the news cycle for the next 24. Unfortunately the Republicans might fall victim to Gustav stealing a little of their media cycle next week. Its all about the media cycle folks.

____________________

Uri:

@SwingVote: I love the story that Obama makes all his money from poor individuals who give him 10$.

First, McCain opted for public funding, Obama flipped flopped on that.

So I looked up the contributions in my workplace, and lo and behold, tons of professors, deans, etc. give him at least $1000 each. I looked in Si Vi, same story, I looked in my old neighborhood in Boston, same story.

Then I looked in the republican area that I live in now, and people give a little, here and there.

Obviously, not a scientific sample, but enough to question that back story.

____________________

Basil:

@player

Prototype American Girl?

Prototype?
Girl?

Can't wait until the (re)production run?

Nice Stepford Wives allusion...


____________________

player:

@Basil:
What? you mean you've never heard the song, ' American girl'?

____________________

SwingVote:

@Uti: McCain flip flopped on public financing as well. He first said he will accept public funding for primaries. Then he got a loan using public funding as collateral. Then he changed his mind and opted out. This is not only flip flop but also unethical. He did not receive any public funds but he used it as a collateral.

For this story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503639_pf.html

If opting out from public funding is a bad thing, McCain did the same thing for primaries. He also did something unethical.

Professors or engineers donating Obama $1000 each do not mean these are special interest groups. These are people like you and me. They are rather investors, investing for their kids future. Exxon employees donated Obama more than McCain. That does not mean that Exxon loves Obama more. Oil lobbyist support McCain fully.

If we come to our original point, you did not show any proof that being a lawyer, a professor or a senator make you elitist.

____________________

SwingVote:

For anyone who compares Obama and Palin:

Obama is elected, Palin is selected.

He has been running a nation-wide campaign for more than a year and he has been very successful. He got more than 18 million votes and defeated Hillary Clinton.

What did Palin do? A campaign in Alaska defeating who knows who. She got 300,000 votes?

____________________

player:

My friends, you are in for a rude awakening. Happy landing.

____________________

saywhat90:

if barack was a 2 year governor from alaska you guys would be saying the same thing about his lack of experience. yeah this is all a case of having your cake and eating it too.

____________________

Basil:

McCain couldn't win on issues, and none of the GOP heavies were deemed helpful enough to give him a better shot. Enter Sarah Palin-- moose shootin', baby-totin', oil-drillin', Buchanan-boostin', corruption-hatin' beauty queen governor from Alaska.
Three problems: she didn't want the job and doesn't know anything about it, Hillary's actual supporters won't see her as a stand-in, and it leaves McCain with no credibility beyond his base.
There's a Clarence Thomas ring to the Palin pick. Something like "Hey feminists. You want a woman in the White House? Try this one on for size." If she were an appointment, like Thomas, it might stick, but too many voters have to go along with the idea.
In fairness, she's a far more appealing person than Thomas, and likely to appeal more to men than women, I think. But the hypocrisy level is extreme and it's a total Hail Mary play. Good TV, though.
That's not to say it won't work. If everybody in Florida had had butterfly ballots, maybe Buchanan would have carried the state.

____________________

player:

Barack isn't a two year governor of anything. He hasn't had any executive experience. He wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold. The women of democrat party are going to vote for whomever they want to vote for. It didn't matter who McCain selected. They don't like Obama for obvious reasons. They way his campaign's supporters treated another woman who was their choice is a travesty. Personally, it was difficult even for me to believe and I'm not exactly a HRC fan. It was the worst display of politics that I have ever seen.

____________________

Basil:

Player:
The Hillary part is what every righty who wanted Hillary to be nominated so McCain would beat the pants suit off her says. It helps keep the wound open (you hope) so the Know-Nothing party can keep voters from asking them any serious questions, like why the Bush admin is the worst in American history, why the Iraq war was and is a colossal, murderous blunder, and why McCain and the rest of the GOP did nothing significant to stop it.
Obama wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold? Please. How about the end that keeps some idiot from shooting somebody by accident? Too bad nobody was there to hold up the end of Dick Cheney's gun as he tried to blow disoriented, half-tame birds away. You want a gun? Join the militia and get yourself well-regulated.
Oh yeah, Obama's a bad bowler, too. What a loser.

____________________

AJ:

@ player
I am sorry, but I have to reply to your 'I am covinced' remark. I mean what exactly have you known about Sarah Palin before yesterday. How many times have you heard her speak, and do you really have a clue about what she stands for on national issues. On her official page it states that she has no position on foreign policy! Wow! She tauted her PTA experience on her VP introduction speach. I have no doubts that she may be a nice lady, but VP of the United States of America? Not even you can be serious about that.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

I'm liking the characterization of McCain/Palin as the Big Oil ticket. So far the media has mostly been attacking her experience. Troopergate will be revealed in the next couple days too.

____________________

marctx:

I have to question the the GOP tactic to nominate a VP with only a little more experience than than the democratic nominee. If it is risky to nominate a candidate like Palin with little experience. This makes Obamas no experience a moot point.

____________________

marctx:

No way you can vote for McCain/Palin. She only has a little more experience than me. I have a three inch p. A woman can't run the government. Only the messiah can run the government. Not a woman. Women are inferior. Men rule.

____________________

brambster:

@marctx

You know, the VP argument is even easier than that.

If Palin was a man, there's no way in hell he would be picked.

Call it pandering, call it tokenizing women, call it whatever you want, it's a hollow pick and it's insulting to not just women, but to this country to try to pull a stunt like that. The next thing you know they will be parading her around in low cut blouses in order to get camera time. That's really not that far removed from what they did already.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR