McCain Holds Small Lead In Polls

A slew of state polls have been released but I am not going to pay attention to them. Here's why - they all came too close to the GOP Convention. I am going to concentrate on the national tracking polls for a few more days. We have 3 to follow - Ras, which has a tie, Gallup, which has McCain by 4 (though I have expressed my problems with the Gallup tracking results), and Hotline, which has McCain by 2.

At this point, the race seems to have stabilized to a virtual tie/small McCain lead. I believe the fundamentals still strongly favor Obama and believe he should remain the strong favorite to win the election. But he really needs to look to change the current Media narrative. The disagreement between Jeralyn (and the entire Left blogosphere apparently) and I on Palinpalooza need not be rehashed in this post. I merely suggest again the following - Barack Obama can grab the Media narrative by the neck if he would spend a few days campaigning together with Bill and Hillary Clinton, especially if he makes a strong economic appeal in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. I strongly recommend Obama take this tack next week.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Stevens' Dismissal Motions Denied | A Closer Look at McCain's Sex Education Ad >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • I am ready to focus on what we need (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:35:25 PM EST
    and the work to be done.

    Too late to ignore Palin (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ks on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:14:06 PM EST
    The time to "ignore" Palin was when she was first announced, but instead, his camp tried to snidely downplay her experience and the majority of the left blogosphere went nuts over her (and, amazing, they still are).  

    This built up the buzz to Palin's speech which she then proceeded to knock out of the park.  Think about it, almost as many people watched her speech as watched Obama's.  That's ridiculous considering that she was only on the scene for less than a week at the time.

    They should have followed Hillary's lead and, as she did, simply welcomed her to the race and then focused on attacking Repub and McCain policies.  

    But no, "Obama Worst Enimies" struck again and played a key part in creating the Palin PR monster.


    There's miles of difference between (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:11:15 PM EST
    ignoring Palin and Palinpalooza.

    ignore:  To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.

    palooza:  An exaggerated event.


    At this point... (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by ks on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:48:27 PM EST
    That's pretty much a distinction without a difference.  The unhinged overreaction to Palin from a lot of the left blogosphere and the MSM, which was deftly handled by the GOP, created Palinpalooza. Let's look at the latest example; the "she's hasn't been interviewed by the media!!" meme has been spread around by the usual suspects and now what?  The buzz has been built for her ABC interview which will probably get great ratings and keep the palooza going.    

    The genie is out of the bottle, the horse is out of the barn, the toothpaste is out of the tube or whatever cliche you prefer, the point is that trying to ignore Palin or Palinpalooza now is similar to the Dem Primary season when Obama was the palooza and Hillary was saying "Look over here!"

    Obama is now in the "Look over here" position and given the short timeframe it's questionable whether he can sucessfully ignore the palooza and keep the attention on McCain.


    Never let the enemy set the pace of the war (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:00:51 PM EST
    even when the enemy is media mania.  Palin who?  Oh yes, her, the person who is Republican VP nominee.  Now what are her policies and why am I supposed to vote for McCain and what is McCain going to do for me again because it has been some tough tough years here? See, it isn't that hard.

    Perhaps...but timing is important (none / 0) (#152)
    by ks on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:17:56 PM EST
    But a more accurate question and more refelctive of the current reality would be - Biden who?

    It would be easy to do what you are suggesting in abstract and might have been effective if that was their original approach but the reality is their strange initial reaction to Palin has help to create a circumstance that for the first time during this entire campaign season, (primary and general, Obama has lost control of the narrative and is reduced to shouting "Look over here".  


    I agree with you that their strange original (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:29:20 PM EST
    reaction to Palin has helped create this circumstance.  I watched them together the first moment they were asked for a response it was pathetic.  It made them look even more "out of touch with women".  Perhaps there will be no cure, but maybe now all the people arguing that Dems must work very hard to reach out to and embrace the Christian right will just STFU.  If the Democratic party ever provides them with a more psycho Dobsoner than the right is going to I'm moving to Russia.  Oh how I miss the secular and religiously silent Democratic party.

    it's all about Ohio (3.50 / 2) (#99)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:00:55 PM EST
    As frustrated and concerned as a lot of people are right now with polls, etc. here's an interesting thing to keep in mind:

    Even with all the recent hype, GOP convention, and Palin pick, John McCain does not have a poll lead in any state that John Kerry won in 2004.

    If Barack Obama holds every state Kerry won and takes Ohio, no other state Bush won just Ohio, Obama wins the election.

    By poll average, Obama is currently 4% ahead of McCain in Ohio.

    Let's get Bill, Hillary, along with anyone and everyone from politician to volunteer to Ohio and help bring it back home to the Dems.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#103)
    by ks on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:04:03 PM EST
    What poll average are you talking about?  The latest RCP average has MCain up 1.8% in Ohio.

    the legit ones (none / 0) (#115)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:25:28 PM EST

    Quinnepac - Obama +5
    CNN - Obama +2

    By the way, it's helpful to note that RCP is a Republican based operation.


    RCP is an AVERAGE (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    of ALL the recent polls, not just an average of the two you happen to like best.

    A few things (none / 0) (#129)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:46:04 PM EST
    The most recent polls have Obama up 5 in Ohio. The RCP average is skewed because the Fox News poll (which aside from the obvious GOP ties has has worse results than Zogby) has McCain's up 7.

    But polls aside, Kerry lost by less than 100,000 votes in Ohio with no ground game at all. There was no DNC or Kerry/Edwards office operating in the state, no GOTV movement, nothing.

    Ground game is key, and Obama has it in full force.


    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by AlSmith on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:39:09 PM EST
    Where are you getting this? According to wikipedia Kerry lost by almost 120,000 votes in Ohio and 3 million votes over all.

    Even at that Kerry had the 2nd highest vote total ever, so you are rewritting history if you say there was no GOTV effort. My recollection is all we heard about was Ohio, Ohio, Ohio the whole way.
    href=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-11-01-campaign-lastday_x.h tm>Mad dash to get out the vote
    "Democrats said they have a million volunteers arrayed to get out the vote, including 250,000 in battleground states. Republicans said they have 1.2 million volunteers, about 300,000 of them in key states -- Wisconsin, Minnesota, Florida and Ohio.

    "Our offices are just bursting at the seams," said Karen Hicks, the Democrats' national field director. Hicks also acknowledged that "I would be practicing malpractice if I underestimated the Republican effort."

    There are a lot of reasons to think this year is different but you are whistling past the grave yard if you look to GOTV and cell phones as the game changers.


    Totally different (none / 0) (#189)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:33:25 PM EST
    Ok so Kerry lost Ohio by 118,599 votes. Well let's look at some of the numbers.

    Out of the 860,000 African Americans in Ohio who are eligible to vote, in 2004 only 380,000 voted. But get this, Kerry only got 84% of that. If Obama wins 95% of the black vote, he will win the state without a single extra voter.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:45:22 PM EST
    but you are discounting the fact that there are lots of Dems in OH who aren't going to vote for Obama. He's losing Kerry voters so he'll have to make up even more voters than you are estimating.

    And... (none / 0) (#199)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:00:54 PM EST
    If McCain gains 5% more in the white vote, Obama is sunk.

    Obama HAS to make inroads with this group to have a shot.  There are just not enough AAs or young people to offset for a full-scale defection of Reagan Democrats.


    I really wouldn't count on Ohio going Dem (none / 0) (#166)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:38:16 PM EST
    I heard a lot of these same things in 2004, and really, it wasn't that close.

    C'mon now... (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by ks on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:02:50 PM EST
    That's just silly.  Btw, the two latest Ohio polls, Strategic Vision and Inadv/PollPosition, have McCain up +4 and +1 respectively.

    Question: how are poll results being (none / 0) (#93)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    manipulated and misrepresented? For instance, lets assume (for a minute) that Obama is presently TANKING in public opinion.

    Would the powers-that-be want us to KNOW that right now?

    I'd say no, because that would generate a lot of panic among the Democratic base and motivate many of us to really put on a maximal push to turn it around.

    As it is, we're being lulled into a sense of complacency by this notion that the odds are more or less even and McCain will go down after his convention bounce subsides.

    WAKE UP! If Obama is actually tanking big time, we're not going to get the BIG MEMO till November 4th.


    A bridge for sale (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by This from a broad on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    It does seem inconceivable that the Dems could lose this election, but we must not forget that the people who are voting, elected Bush twice!!

    Yup, more real work (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:05:13 PM EST
    Less snitting and sniping, from everyone to include Obama.  Time to get real.

    Did you say (none / 0) (#200)
    by hookfan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:09:38 PM EST
    Less knitting and piping? Tell Rahm. Oh wait, I misread. . . my bad =)

    On the contrary, some of us posting here ... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by cymro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    ... have been conceiving of this very real possibility since February.

    Personally, I have been warning incredulous Obama supporters for 6 months that if Obama is the Democratic candidate, they should look forward to President McCain. Not selecting Hillary for the VP slot was the final nail in the coffin of Democratic hopes this year.

    I hope to be proved wrong, but I can't imagine how that can possibly happen, considering all the strings the Republicans are going to pull over the next two months to help McCain win.


    See Greek Mythology (none / 0) (#170)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:41:02 PM EST
    As it (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    stands right now, the tide is against Obama. He keeps largely shooting himself in the foot.

    Obama needs to make some serious changes in his campaign staff. They have proven themselves nothing but awful. They haven't a clue how to run against Republicans. He needs to tamp down on his supporters.

    I think that Bill campaigning with him would give him a boost but I don't know that it would be a lasting one. It would be the same thing as the convention--Bill and Hillary would be able to rally the troops initially but then it would fade.

    He needs to get out there and tell people why they should vote FOR him. He needs to be clear and concise. Quit the college professor lectures. Quit responding to the GOP in front of a crowd.

    Can he turn it around? We'll see.

    Never underestimate the GOP no matter how bad the fundamentals are for them. Obama certainly has and may pay the price for it.

    Bill and Hillary have clout, but people need (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    to remember it is obama running for prez, not them and he has to change the narrative, not sit back and let others do the heavy lifting...you are correct GA6thdem.  

    I think both Bill and Hill (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by fercryingoutloud on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM EST
    are a two edged sword. Sure they can effectively communicate Democratic values and talk about what needs to be talked about.

    On the flip side in doing so they remind people that Obama is incapable of doing either of those things - and it is Obama The Incapable that they are considering voting for.

    So in way it appears they can help him, but in reality they only emphasize what he is not.


    And that is a very good point. When (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    comparing H&B to obama, the comparisons are quite stark and make obama look very weak on issues and his grasp on what is going on.

    But if Bill and Hill stay home (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    and Obama still can't produce a strong message, that's not going to result in victory either.

    Hillary Clinton is d*mn persuasive. (Bill too.) I have sworn that I will not vote for Sen. Obama, but I was incredibly moved by her convention speech. Not moved enough to vote for him, but if I lived in a swing state, I probably would. I think Bill and Hillary on the campaign trail can only help.


    I am not disputing the Hill & Bill factor, but (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    it is up to obama to seal the deal and he can't seem to.  If you remember, he could not seal the nomination either until he got all that help from the DNC and the democratic process was tweaked to tilt his way.

    Oh, I remember! (none / 0) (#142)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    I'm saying I think Hillary and Bill can win this election for him. I didn't use to think that, but I do now. (I can't prove it, obviously.  It's just my opinion.)

    I wonder why this did not occur to the party ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by cymro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    ... elite before now?

    He needs to STOP pacing and joking (5.00 / 7) (#125)
    by esmense on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:43:05 PM EST
    and start focusing on the people he's addressing. Look into the camera. Speak TO the crowd, not just in front of it. Find someone in that crowd and focus intently on convincing them that he knows who they are and understands their self-interest. He has to stop looking like he's talking for himself -- defending himself, explaining himself, amusing himself (and the partisans standing nearby) with stories about the crazy antics and "can you believe it" stupidity and unfair tactics of his opponents -- and start earnestly trying to persuade the American people with the passion and justice of his message and policies. And, most important, of the applicability of those policies to their lives.

    Doesn't his campaign ever review the video? Haven't they noticed that he's not connecting? That he doesn't appear to have, as any effective salesman must, a clear idea of who is talking to and what they want and need to hear (in order to be convinced to give him their vote)?

    He's no longer, but often looks like he thinks he is, standing in front of a classroom of people whose responsibility it is to pay attention and remember what he said (while paying for the privilege of doing so).  The people he's talking to now don't need to be taught -- they need to be CONVINCED that HE knows, understands and is capable of serving (what they already know and believe); their self interest and the best interest of the country.


    You are very correct...he lacks passion (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:47:10 PM EST
    and compassion imo

    That's a good observation (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:57:58 PM EST
    The pacing thing is weird - I don't remember another politician doing that.  They may move at certain dramatic points or turn to address different segments of the audience but not back-and-forth, back-and-forth...

    It is like what a professor does, when one is really into their lecture and almost entirely within their own heads.  A student may pay attention but an audience member is just not engaged.  It's too distracting and unnerving.

    With the big speeches, he's static at a podium and does much better.  He needs to find a happy medium for smaller audiences.


    It should be very correctable (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by esmense on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    "It is like what a professor does, when one is really into their lecture and almost entirely within their own heads."

    That is a perfect description.

    When I see him doing this I want to reach into the TV and grab his arm and say "STOP IT."  I don't understand why no one in the campaign has brought it to his attention.

    Maybe Bill will mention it over lunch?


    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by otherlisa on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:14:49 PM EST
    Enough with the snark. I have a hard time watching him, I find his attitude so off-putting.

    I am not voting for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by TheRizzo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:40:17 PM EST
    At least as of yet, but I 100% agree that BTD is correct in that he needs to get out with both of the Clintons but definitely at a miniumum one of them to get the press coverage back on him and start getting back on his message.

    That is definitely the starting point he needs to achieve.  

    The 2nd thing he needs to do is start actually talking from his gut and actually connecting with middle voters.  He hasn't done it for me yet.   Even his "enough" yesterday was read off a paper and had little emotion or conviction.

    Its been months that I have been asking for part 2, so I am doubtful he has it in him at all, but if he does, now would be a good time to show it and still have a shot to win me over.

    And we get....? (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by goldberry on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:44:04 PM EST
    How do you restore trust after blowing off your more worthy opponent and her voters?  This is what is going to get him in the end.  Showing up with the Clintons is just going to accentuate his glaring weaknessess.  
    Besides, Palin was a game changer.  See, for many womenm neither candidate is going to be a real change agent.  Obama is too willing to sacrifice every principle he has for the sake of post-partisanship.  In the end, he may not be any better than McCain, who at least appears to have a real committment to ferreting out corruption.  So, in many respects, neither candidate is better than the other on many issues.  You can disagree but like I said, Obama seems to be too willing to do what is politically expedient.  
    With that in mind, what's in it for us?  Well, we have the Congress that we must hold and that is starting to look iffy as well.  Obama has very short coattails.  But that is where we must focus our attention.  If we can save Congress, many women will start to figure out that they may actually benefit from having Sarah Palin as VP>  Hillary carried the ball 90 yds down the field and now Palin just has to carry it 10 more.  Then, we'd have a woman pretty close to the top, making it easier for women that follow to crack the ceiling.  And it won't matter what the young male hotheads say.  The deed will be done.  No going back.  The next time a Democratic woman runs for office, her chances of success will be better and our lives have a much better chance of real improvement.  
    So, short term goal: save Congress for the Dems
    Long term goal: make women in high office so commonplace that they will NEVER take us for granted again.  

    Well said. (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:01:07 PM EST
    I hope that it is Hillary because the Country will need her after McCain.  No, he is not Bush, but, I don't think that he has it in him to fix these intransigent problems that are rapidly evolving into crises.

    Agree with BTD, that the only way that Obama has a chance is to address the "bread and butter" issues and sincerely with passion.  To me, Obama has been milquetoast except when he perceives that he has been attacked, and then, his mocking and dismissive tone is forefront (of course, this is self defeating as well).

    I have shifted my work and support to Congress.  We will need a counterweight to McCain.


    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by TheRizzo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    As of right now I am voting downticket Democrat, and probably McCain at the top.  Not sold yet, but its going to take 3 good debates and a lot of passion and fight from Obama the last 55 days to get me to feel comfortable voting him.

    Start talking about the bread and butter issues with actual straight top filled with passion and conviction so that I honestly believe he is in it, then that will go a long ways with the middle.  

    While I agree going with the Clintons to some will re exposes the weakness in him, I honestly feel right now he has no other recourse to try and draw the media attention and dialogue back to him.  His own novelty is wearing off fast, and Biden can't bring it with him.   That leaves the only two people in the party that can: The Clintons.  


    Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by goldberry on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:50:13 PM EST
    He can hang out with the Clintons all he wants.  It won't help him restore our trust in him.  Maybe sacrificing his position as nominee in facor of Hillary might but other than that, I can't see how turning to the people he and his supporters actively despised right up to the Invesco field coronation is going to help him.  At all. It just looks like desperation, which, coincidentally, it is.  Once elected, he will feel free to just ignore the voters.  The damage is done and probably irreversible.  
    I think Obama is really going to write off a good chunk of his base this election season.  That leaves him with what...?

    Obama did a smart thing...... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    having lunch with Bill Clinton.  It is the right move and the start of something just as new and wonderful as Palin.

    IF he listens to Bill (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:30:51 PM EST
    and can rise to this occasion...

    We'll see.

    I wouldn't bet the farm.


    Bill invited him. (none / 0) (#75)
    by mogal on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    What does that matter even if it is fact? (4.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:03:19 PM EST
    Who is it that you want to hate on now?  Stop the hate, just say no to the hate, mo more hate speech it is bad for your aura, it is what Jesus would do :) Someone obviously proposed it but what really matters is that it is happening and Obama IS the candidate making the candidate decisions......not Bill Clinton.

    Yea, but as I tell my kids-- (none / 0) (#201)
    by honora on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:23:13 PM EST
    It's your body.  Bill Clinton will do what Bill Clinton wants to do.  Obama can be the 'candidate' from now to November and that just gets him secret service protection.

    Change? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by ItsGreg on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:38:52 PM EST
    for many womenm neither candidate is going to be a real change agent.

    Oh, I think Senator McCain would most definitely be a change agent in terms of women's issues. He'd certainly appoint Supreme Court justices who would favor overturning Roe v. Wade. He's also opposed to requiring health care plans to cover birth control. And he opposed a recent bill that supported equal pay for women (a bill both Senator Clinton and Obama supported). If that's not change enough, when his Vice Presidential choice was mayor she instituted a law requiring women victims of rape to pay for their own rape kit exams...the only town in Alaska to do that.

    So yes, I think McCain will certainly be a change agent. Whether or not it's the sort of change you want, that's another issue.


    If the Democrats let him (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by esmense on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    We wouldn't have the yahoos we have on the bench today without the support -- and votes -- of Democrats.

    Are you saying that, as a woman, (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:49:02 PM EST
    you would welcome a McCain presidency?  Please read what you wrote.  

    I'm only human (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:11:16 PM EST
    I myself have thought that gee, let us get some women up there however we can break through that glass ceiling, and then maybe just maybe I can get to legislate some on these FUBAR patriarchial losers!  Like most women in America, life is better for us than it used to be but I sure can remember when it wasn't so and to have Obama and Biden to have acted the way they have toward "women's issues"......oh, I have so little real love for them I'm barely hanging in there.  My loyalties are often razor thin but being choked once by a better than me man, and having an angry bigger and better than me man threaten to give my baby some shaken baby syndrome once can just do those things to a girl's mind.

    My reply was addressed to Goldberry! (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:27:39 PM EST
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    I was just letting you know that I have "issues".

    Got it. (none / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:37:46 PM EST
    How is your son doing?

    He's doing a lot better (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:07:07 PM EST
    Still can't put weight on his feet yet as he needs to develop the scar tissue where the pin is that his foot will use in place of cartilage.  He tries to get up in his sleep and walk around, poor little dude. A pdf link for you because you are such a smartypants.  The surgeon who did it is extremely good with feet, considered the foot artist in America so we anticipate a good outcome and if you look at the photos, it looks pretty good.  We would be absolutely thrilled with such an outcome so keep your fingers crossed for us.

    My best wishes for you and your son. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:33:48 PM EST
    P.S.  I loved the blogger-adapted song lyric from your earlier comment.

    Biden who? (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by fercryingoutloud on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:51:55 PM EST
    MIA. Did Obama gag him?

    He's been saying great stuff... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by prose on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:53:32 PM EST
    He's been making really good speeches full of policy and honest reflection but he only gets coverage when he says something controversial.  It's the fault of the tabloidization of the election - it's not Biden's fault.

    Good point (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by fercryingoutloud on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:24:59 PM EST
    So much for the media being on Obama's side huh?

    No more media darling.


    I saw a clip of him at a gathering (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:32:20 PM EST
    saying that 'Hillary was qualified to be present or vp and some say she was a better choice than me.'  Wow.  I guess if Hillary had been the VP she would have had coverage 24/7 (waiting for a gaffe?).   So just maybe getting the Clintons out there will increase the Democratic coverage.

    hairspray...let's try again (none / 0) (#141)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    hotmail/pssttcmere....hoping to hear from ya regarding that question...sorry for being O/T

    I agree (3.00 / 0) (#22)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    Biden is definitely out there and stating the case for the Dem ticket.  He just is not getting the coverage.  Good solid political speech jsut does not seem to attract the media.  How very sad!!

    Well if they want attention on Biden... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cosbo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    get John Edwards to campaign a bit with him. They'll get lots of attention then. Since Edwards is now as infamous as Clinton, he should come out of hiding and campaign on the issues.

    But democrats would never be that bold. Republicans...yes. Democrats. No.

    Republicans brazen sexual scandals until they die down.

    Democrats hide in embarrassment.

    Only here in America, of course, where the penis and the vagina appears to be permanently tied to political issues. Lord.


    Except for one Democrat. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    Bill Clinton is not in hiding.

    Yup. Good for him. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cosbo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    Edwards needs to come out hiding and start putting the issues back on the table, if not for himself then for his children. Heh.

    Nope. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    Edwards is a fool and a phony and can help no one for a long time to come.

    He's done.


    Nah. Nobody is done unless they want to be. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by cosbo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    Time to get back on the horsey and start beating the Universal Healthcare/Poverty issues again. None of that has to anything to do with his dick.

    I'll tell you who would draw (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    the media's attention away from Palin:  Elizabeth Edwards.  

    Her too. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by cosbo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:32:49 PM EST
    They have to come out of "shame & hiding" now. The longer he hides the harder it is to come back. JRE screwed up. Elizabeth knew. It's time to move along.

    Edwards is more infamous than Bill now (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    Bill is moving center as he continues to make use of common sense while philandering.... Bill's someplace in the middle, maybe someday he can be the new hanky panky JFK.  After his death we will cannonize him like we did Reagan.

    I know Edwards is more infamous right now... (none / 0) (#65)
    by cosbo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    but that only means that the media will latch onto him. Talking about the issues. They'll certainly stop talking about Sarah Palin long enough to note that John and maybe Elizabeth are back and fight for the future of their children.

    No. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    No one would buy it.

    AND...it is another distraction from Obama...the last thing they need.

    Here's the $64 question:

    Where's Michelle?

    Is she AWOL or MIA?


    Joining with the Clintons is a great idea... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by prose on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    but we should give him credit - he HAS been talking policies.  He has also been addressing Palin and McCain's hypocrisy, pushing back on their dishonesty, and talking about the need to talk issues.

    That narrative seems to be catching hold.  That is a good thing for Obama.  Now he needs to do something to get them to report on him talking about issues.  Unfortunately, that isn't tabloid-fodder so it will be hard to get the media involved in covering it.

    character, character, meta (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by souvarine on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    Obama's been "talking about the need to talk issues." Eventually he will start talking about issues, but it will be scatter-shot with no coherent theme. He will assume we are right on the issues and list our positions, but he won't focus on a defining issue and explain to voters why we are right, and they are wrong, on that issue.

    It is obvious to him that he is right, and he believes that the voters, in their infinite wisdom, will see that he is right. Since he doesn't respect the people who disagree with him, he won't pay the voters the respect of explaining how he is right.


    He did this well with the constitution... (none / 0) (#97)
    by prose on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:00:42 PM EST
    hitting the importance of Habeaus Corpus.  Its coming.  The closer we get to the election the more people are going to want real answers because we have real problems.  The game is about the game right now, but I don't think that will be sustained.

    Even in 2004, people ultimately made their choice based on their perception of self-interest.  They were afraid and they voted like it.  This year people are fed up and I think they'll vote like it again.  

    Palin shakes things up - there's no way around that.  But we've already seen some movement back toward issues and we're starting to see Obama get fired up about issues.  This will be good for us.


    so make it fodder (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Nasarius on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    Seriously, we've got no doubt millions of dollars spent on campaign consultants, and no ideas for how to push issues in an edgy way that will get media coverage? The media is terribly broken, but it's clearly possible for politicians to game it for their own ends. The Republicans are masters of it.

    John and Elizabeth Edwards were able to get everyone talking about poverty of all things (and to a lesser extent health care), and they had nowhere near the star power of Obama.

    So don't blame the media (though they deserve it), use the media. They're not terribly smart, they just need to be fed in the right way.


    Um (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    Weren't people on this very blog complaining that she wouldn't talk to the media?  So, now that she is, it's too much free publicity?

    It depends on what the interview is like... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by prose on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:56:10 PM EST
    If Gibson makes it all campaign drama questions and personality stuff and then let's her take shots at Obama a la her stump speech I'll be very angry.  We need to hear real policy related to the REAL world - not just right-wing idealogical pat answers like her "Fannie and Freddie are too big and too expensive" joke of a policy statement.

    Fair point, but (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    while I realize she only has 2 months, Obama had (and still has) many softball interviews given to him (see: Olbermann), and he's been running for POTUS for years, and just now we see peeps of actual policy, so why do you have a different standard for her?

    When she... (2.00 / 0) (#87)
    by prose on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    does 21 debates, countless townhalls, and puts out written statements of position, I'll then let her have a softball interview.  But when this will be her first (and maybe only, for a while) interview on national issues, I've got no time for a soft interview.

    So, you mean you don't want Palin to have (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:52:38 PM EST
    the same type interviews that obama had so much of the time?

    there is no point in (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:57:57 PM EST
    looking for the logic...

    Seems so ridiculous sometimes (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    I should just stop wasting time bloggging.  My son and husband have made up a song that goes to the tune of the 'Underdog Song'.  I think they believe we are all nuts now.  It goes something like

    There's no need to fear, Wonderblog is here.  Speed of typing, roar of blunder.......

    They have lots more words but why go there


    She is the new Obama... (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by alexei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:03:35 PM EST
    remember all the hype for him?  Too bad for the Dems and Obama.  Goldberry is right - Palin is the game changer and there is not enough time to ride out the Palin express, IMOP.

    Hype goes away if only we allow it to (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:09:51 PM EST
    LOL. Unfortunately the GE is all about... (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by cosbo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:16:44 PM EST
    hype and hoping that the hype goes away is like p*ssing in the eye of a hurricane.

    I'm gonna try that this season if I get close (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    enough to one :)  Write my name in it :)  I'm a business major and decent at marketing too when needed.  I was also very worried in high school about my popularity, God...I'm so glad I never have to go through that again.  When it comes to popularity contests though we have to devise our own beauty queen (issues and answers) and then we have to treat like it is that......because it really would be such a thing of beauty and so needed.  You can't flinch in popularity contests though.  You smile and move gracefully, with creativity and beauty to the next standoff and you never let them see your booty sweat.  The eyes can't avoid the figures moving with true confidence, it is human nature and written stupidly into our DNA.

    Yeah. I know what you mean about the (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by cosbo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    issues. That's why I was so drawn to Edwards in the primaries. He went straight for the issues. Aggressively. I loved that. Forced Obama and Hillary to up their game. He was killing them in the debates.

    If America was focused on issues. Edwards would have won hands down. Well he was/is quite  pretty to look at too.


    I was for Edwards before I was against him :) (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:05:42 PM EST
    He was my first choice.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:39:58 PM EST

    I still like him. (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by cosbo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    I know alot of people tend judge harshly in situations like these. But I'm not one them, especially since I'm no saint myself. In fact, I will confess right now, to being pretty bad and have have even walked in Edwards shoes for a time So who am I to judge? I can't. I can only try to understand, accept and forgive.

    None of what I did stops me from caring about the kind of country I want my boys to live in...you know...:-)


    Jab....nice jab :) (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    Without Wanting To Get Into (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by The Maven on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    an argument, several commenters had pointed out yesterday that the "problems" with the Gallup polling data were the result of comparing apples to oranges of different time periods.  Since Gallup also offered the breakdown for the same Sept. 1-7 periods both by gender (Obama by 7 among women, McCain by 5 among men, for a net of Obama by 2 even if the percentage of women polled was well over half) and overall candidate support (Obama by 2), it's hard to see how these would be seen as inconsistent.  Tracking poll data for only the latter portion of the time period did seem to show a shift toward McCain, but the data sets for the matching time periods work out just as they should.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:56:15 PM EST
    New Ras poll out shows more people think McCain will work across the aisle than Obama.  Isn't that one of Obama's "selling points"?

    Those don't relate to votes (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    It is very interesting to look at the break down and that is does not always relate to votes.  I hate to refer to the primary, but Clinton rated better in many areas but that did not win her the primary.  So I don't worry about those items.  It's down to media sound bites and the debates.

    It doesn't always have to be about votes, though (none / 0) (#100)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:01:39 PM EST
    That tells me that people see McCain as easier to get along with, which is a huge factor for many people.  That carries over into other areas - getting along with other countries (Putin, for example), working with members of Congress to work on legislation, etc.

    Again - this was Obama's schtick, and if this keeps up and McCain can steal that theme, it's game over.


    10 comments (none / 0) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    Reminder... new commenters (less than 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per day.  You are at 23.  Thanks.

    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#104)
    by prose on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:04:26 PM EST
    post-partisan McCain who demonizes liberals and uses Rove style campaigning.  Give me a break.  People aren't interested in Senatorial operations.  They are interested in a leader who speaks to them inclusively and invites everyone to the table.  Obama is that leader.  McCain moves further to the right (Palin anyone?) all the time.  

    The McCain that I loved in 2000 is gone.  


    He may be gone... (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:00:34 PM EST
    ... but he was hyped by the media for so long that he's not forgotten by the voting public.  Can you think of any legislation that has gotten as much ink for its sponsors as McCain-Feingold?  That bill was pimped for years by the MSM, it's a big component of McCain's maverick street creds and one reason people think he's bipartisan now.

    See also:  immigration, Gang of 14


    CNN is doing equal time (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    unless they have more planned than the 2 Sat night features. One Palin, one Biden

    Losing twice would hurt (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by blogtopus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    First watching Hillary lose to Obama, then watching Barack lose to McCain... that would be PAINFUL. Twice burnt.

    But we shall see. I watched Obama's appearance on Letterman and I was happy to see it wasn't that bad. Glad to see that.

    I guess Palin as possible President is proof that no matter how bad things get, it could be much worse.

    Faint praise. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    "...wasn't that bad."



    Yup (none / 0) (#140)
    by blogtopus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:58:14 PM EST
    That's all he gets. I won't faint every time he doesn't stick his foot in his mouth. ;-)

    Biden is getting equal time (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    He's been on also.  There are specials for all 4 candidates and they are re-shown and updated.  I think no one is paying attention to Biden.  He's known for his gaffes and I'm sure that is not the attention the campaign wants.

    I think you hit a nerve (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:58:03 PM EST
    Your statement:

    I think no one is paying attention to Biden.

    is exactly why he ended up the VP. I don't think Obama was willing to share the lime light with anyone. I hope he doesn't use the same reasoning when he appoints a cabinet.


    Electoral College: Obama 193 McCain 189 (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by fercryingoutloud on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    That's according to Rasmussen.

    Even Obama shill and poll massager Bowers has it  Obama 229 to 226 McCain.

    Reminder: The Democratic Convention and The GOP Convention were within days of each other. Had they been weeks apart there may be an argument that the GOP is fresher in everyones minds. But both ending within a week of each other I don't think that argument can be seriously made.

    There is not only the expected 'convention bump' taking place here. If one really reads one will see an increase GOP identity , and increase in McCain's standing on issues that Obama once owned such as the economy, an increase in McCain's support with both women and independents and on and on. There are far too many things leaning in McCain's favor for one to say they are just convention bumps.

    BTD, a number of posters yesterday explained why you are confused on the Gallup poll. They are correct. I'll just add that one of the oldest, if not the oldest, polling company does not make mistakes like you are trying to say they have. I understand that you would like them to be wrong but they are not. Like most of the posters yesterday said, the samples taken in polls are not 50-50 men and women and that is what you are missing.

    Not looking so good (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    It is bad when your guy is in the position of needing to shake up the race.

    That's what McCain supporters said (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by jccleaver on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    And then... he shook up the race! Problem solved.

    So what do you think should be done (none / 0) (#191)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:35:11 PM EST

    It's the economy, stupid (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:11:00 PM EST
    Obama needs to stop with the snark, but above all stop with the meta meta boilerplate on the economy, and give some indication that he knows the fix we're in. I mean on Letterman, did he mention unemployment stats? The $5 trillion dollar bailout? All we get, as usual, are vague generalities.

    I don't think Obama needs to get angry or passionate; I don't think it's in character, and won't work well. But Obama does need to give me a REASON to come out from under the bus, and so far he hasn't. Why not act Presidential, and put together some task forces NOW? Start one on health care, for example. Start another on the military. Start another on the financial system. Be like FDR and try something. Stop looking down your nose and get to work, guy!

    It's the candidate, silly (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:35:51 PM EST
    Even McCain (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:33:45 PM EST
    was out there yesterday railing against the money the Fannie and Freddie CEOs are taking away from the bailout, saying he would stop it.  Now, I don't believe him for a minute. But even one specific detail like that from Obama would help.

    And I don't mean detail in the sense of mentioning some citizen's name and telling his story of pain.  I mean a detail about his plans.  I know he has them - they're right there on his web site.


    Actually (none / 0) (#124)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:40:25 PM EST
    I am pretty sure Obama came right out of the gate criticizing those severance packages.

    Probably so (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    but what got covered mostly was the lipstick stuff. I heard McCain on CNN talking about CEOs, then, immediately after, Obama talking about campaign tactics. Not where we want to be.

    Changing the Media Narrative/Focus (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by indy in sc on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    is very important right now.  I agree with BTD that appearances with the Clintons will help b/c the media loves to cover them--they'll come looking for drama and accidentally report the message.

    Another way to do it would be to roll out a big endorsement.  If the campaign has any more big ones in hiding (e.g. Colin Powell), now would be the time to roll them out so the media can turn their attention to that.

    Biden is out there with great messages every day, but he can't buy media coverage.  He also needs to go out with someone who is a media draw so that the message can leak out, since the media has no interest in reporting a dull story about issues that actually matter unless there is a barnyard animal involved.

    Another thing Obama needs (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by TheRizzo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    Is to get control of the Democratic party and his campaign.  All these high ranking Democrats like Fowler, the Tenn senator, and now the former Rhode Island Sensator, making these ridiculous comments do the party and Obama no favors what so ever.

    He needs to get everyone on message and point, including himself.  And to me that includes using the word "lipstick" which after her speech became a loaded word.  Perception is reality.

    The DNC is the Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:38:35 PM EST
    That's why the DNC moved to Chicago

    Now? (none / 0) (#54)
    by ks on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:23:18 PM EST
    What did the former RI Senator say?

    He said (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by TheRizzo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    "`I just sent money to Obama, I couldn't sleep last night' -- from the left. To see this cocky wacko up there," he says to laughter."   Calling her a Cocky Wacko is not the best thing right now.

    And then you had the Illinois Governor who backs Obama today say "The reality is, governors every day have to make decisions for better or for worse... And it's a position that is like what you're going to do when you're president. Legislators, they do different things. They debate and they pass their bills back and forth."


    Geez, (none / 0) (#136)
    by JThomas on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:52:06 PM EST
    You do realize that Chaffee is a republican,right?
    Now you are blaming Obama for not controlling an ex-republican senator from Rhode Island?

    Boy, Obama is a bum if he cannot controll both parties, I guess.


    You do realize (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by TheRizzo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:45:18 PM EST
    Chaffe is now a registered independent who long ago endorsed Obama don't you?  Before you lecture get your own facts straight.

    Two thumbs up for this. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:23:03 PM EST
    Barack Obama can grab the Media narrative by the neck if he would spend a few days campaigning together with Bill and Hillary Clinton

    Is there anything sadder ... (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:27:57 PM EST
    than unrequited love?

    That's the vibe I'm getting from Obama these days.  It's rather pathetic.

    He's gotta dig deep and join the battle, communicating over the media noise. There's politicians who can do this.  I don't need to name them.  Obama needs to become one of them.

    He's not going to be saved by Bill Clinton carrying his jock.  He needs to suck up his disappointed about not becoming the Reagan of the left, and fight.

    Like Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:35:13 PM EST
    The media was so against Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:42:24 PM EST
    But she was able to rise above it and win PA, TX, OH, WV, PR, SD

    Hillary was the best candidate and most electable.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    The McCain campaign is using Palin as a wedge to drive the media narrative.

    Having a few campaign stops with Obama, Bill and Hillary would change the media narrative.

    To be clear, I firmly believe that these numbers are still mostly convention bounce and that the numbers next week will be more telling.  I also believe that Obama will regain his small lead.

    And I used to believe (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    in the tooth fairy.

    Obama next plan (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by AlSmith on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    I think that BTD is right that McCain is going to cruise along being a few point behind until there is an 'event'.

    Palin's interview, which has now been hyped up to be a blockbuster rating wise, will probably work out well for her.

    For Obama to continue to fritter away days on this "phony outrage" campaign, that he is involved in too, is a total waste. The only thing lamer than an aging rockstar is an aging rockstar trying to bring down the new rockstar.

    I think the thing to do might to retire from campaigning as much and prep for the debates. People have been assuming that Obama wont do well in the debates. I dont see how he can go 0-3 on the debates and have a solid chance at winning barring another game changer.

    The has plenty of high visibility surrogates to make trips on his behalf. I suspected that media buys are going to be neutered and therefor he will need to win, or at least place, in the free media of the debates.


    Retire from campaigning?!!! (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by davnee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST
    Look Obama needs to be out there hitting the bricks hard in these swing states.  His problem is that his campaigning in these places is not as effective as it should be.  The solution to that is not campaign less.  The solution is to adopt a message and style that works with these swing state voters.  That means more bread and butter specifics and probably more simplicity and fire.  These kinds of voters likely want a populist fighter more than they want a college professor or a post-partisan preacher.

    retire from campaigning as much (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by AlSmith on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    "as much"

    What is the point of him going around and giving the same vague stump speech? Yeah! people who were already goign to vote for you love you!Obama 1.0

    Whats the point of being outraged and talking about Bush 3, pigs and houses? Obama 2.0.

    I agree with you that I would like to see him go to Obama 3.0 where he talks about specific plans. I think he is in danger in Michigan because his energy plans seem so wish and a dream. Thats Obama 3.0 but he doesnt seem to be willing to go to it for fear of being a target or offending an interest group.

    So if he is just going to muddle along at Obama 2.0 until the debates what do you think is going to happen? The polls will stay close, and there will always be bring spots but he wont be ahead. If his debate performance with McCain is as bad as it was against Hillary, he will come out majorly behind.

    He is a bright boy, he should be able to make some major debating improvements if he devotes time to prep.


    Can't retire, must fundraise (none / 0) (#163)
    by jccleaver on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    That's another drawback for him. By not taking the public financing, he has to stay focused on continual fundraising as well.

    Bill and Hillary can't help (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:34:14 PM EST
    Obama comes across like Dukadis and Kerry, politicians without conviction. I see the election close, but leaning McCain. Palin will have her interview with ABC, watch the ratings.  It's going to be another huge audience and for days that's what the news media and the campaigns will talk about. Obama never had an economic or foreign policy message, and if he had, Hillary would have made mincemeat of his message. The change, hope, unity message is stale and going nowhere.  McCain's message is not "change", as Obama has accused.  Palin recreated McCain's "maverick" mantle. I'm convinced that neither Bill or Hillary can save Obama's campaign. Worse for the Democrats, in many states, Obama will drag down the congressional races the way Dukakis and Kerry did because Democratic voters will lose interest.

    Worse yet (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:50:31 PM EST
    His funding raising is leaching cash from the DNC which means that Congressional Democrats can be outspent in the tight races...

    And if the NYT is to be believed, his anemic fund raising is going to be a problem for him AND Congressional Democrats.


    I know (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:05:07 PM EST
    This really pisses me off.  Too many local races are now dependent on an Obama field operation that may not be there in two months.  What happens to the Indiana gubernatorial race if Obama pulls resources out of Indiana?  

    Luckily the DSCC and DCCC have been much better at fundraising than their counterparts, but the DNC is in terrible shape and we have no 527s to speak of right now.

    Obama gambled on being able to raise a ton of general election money but he started off over $100 million in the hole ($84 mil in public funds he passed up and however much advantage the RNC already had over the DNC).  Now his gamble may hurt downticket dems.


    Time to shake up his campaign (none / 0) (#192)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    Axelrod goes?

    527's (none / 0) (#158)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:30:20 PM EST
    I haven't read much about it in the blogs yet, but Obama has changed his position on the 527's and will welcome them now. If money is an issue, that will give his campaign a boost.

    Unfortunately it will also open the door for the flip flop label just as pullimg out of public funding did.


    Late in the game (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:31:55 PM EST
    Very late in the game for these groups to start fundraising and getting ads cut.  The Republican groups have been prepping all year (if not much much longer).

    Where's Michelle? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:42:12 PM EST
    MIA at a crucial time in Obama's campaign...

    school (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Amiss on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    Their kids just started back to school, she is home with them, I believe.

    All Obama needs to do is quit letting the republican "distract and attack" distract him, it's worked for republicans for years and most of the dems still have not let it sink in what they are doing over and over in elections and they get the dems off message with it almost every time.


    I am guessing hidden away (none / 0) (#107)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:05:55 PM EST
    But just a guess.

    You think (4.50 / 2) (#110)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    they're keeping her 'hidden' so she won't comment on Palin?  Possibly.

    She'd better get her lines down and get back in the3 game or the tabloids are going to point out her 'absence' and attribute it to....oh, I dunno, let's see....ummm...a divorce?  Obama's "Hollywood friend?"

    Leave a vacuum and the press will fill it.



    That's an interview I'd watch. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:34:17 PM EST
    Michelle, what is your opinion of Sarah Palin?

    Not until Michelle (none / 0) (#177)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:55:16 PM EST
    gets her lines memorized and can say them with a straight face.

    And follow up.


    One thing worth (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:53:57 PM EST
    remarking on, and in fairness to Obama's campaign, is that much of what we're seeing at this time is really uncharted territory.

    McCain made a real gamble with Palin, and it appear to be paying off in ways I think he couldn't have dreamed of before.

    How would he have expected a priori that Palin would induce such a fit of madness in the media and the blogosphere, and that there would be such a powerful backlash against that? How would he have predicted that the Republicans -- the Republicans! -- would be able, with apparent success, to have accused the Democratic candidate of sexism?

    There's just a lot here going on that no one would have fully anticipated, even if the strategy might at least have been plausible enough to pursue.

    It seems to me that when the history of this election is written, there's going to be a lot of conventional wisdom turned on its head.

    yes, you would have (4.66 / 3) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    thought that after both the media and the DNC finally admitted to seeing sexism after the primary ended, they wouldn't go out there and do it again si quickly.    

    I think in general (4.80 / 5) (#112)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:18:26 PM EST
    among the rules of basic politics that Obama and his campaign broke was the notion that you must be very careful not to offend constituencies that are, in general, on your side. They clearly didn't think that engaging in (or at least clearly tolerating) sexism would come back to haunt them, or that implying that one's primary opponents and their supporters are "racists" would bite them later on. They seemed to believe that identification as a Democrat or with Democratic policies would trump these other issues in the minds of virtually all reachable voters. Plainly, they believed that what happened in the Democratic Party would stay in the Democratic Party.

    It hasn't. They opened a Pandora's box, and all sorts of monstrous marvels have poured out. God only knows when or how they will once again be contained. I see much recrimination and counter-recrimination in our future.


    i wasn't even talking about Obama (4.75 / 4) (#117)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    more the media and OTHER pols.  But, commenters have done it as well.  Just the other day a commenter here said she still believed Palin is a bad mother for accepting the vp slot when she has 5 kids and one special needs at home.  She quickly added that she wasn't being sexist either because she said the same about John Edwards with a sick wife and 2 kids at home.

    HELLO.....  Palin has a perfectly healthy husband at home who has stopped working and is perfectly capable of being the full time at-home parent to raise the children.


    Well (none / 0) (#121)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:36:15 PM EST
    I guess I see the reaction of the media and other pols as being part of what poured out of the Pandora's box that the Obama campaign effectively opened, by making permissible certain types of "argument".

    The Obama campaign simply did nothing but aggravate, rather than discourage, the emotions of the media and other pols and their supporters in general, and took advantage of what that untamped-down hysteria did for them.

    But (to change the metaphor) when the dogs were loosed, they lost control of them, and the damage started coming back their way.


    I call that a good politician (none / 0) (#194)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:40:12 PM EST
    Debates will decide it (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Exeter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:57:51 PM EST
    If Obama can come away with a tie or better, I think he wins... but if he gets tripped up by McCain, then he loses.

    yeah (4.00 / 1) (#116)
    by AlSmith on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:25:58 PM EST

    and that should be worrying people

    He did poorly against Clinton once Edwards was eliminated.

    And he didnt do so great at a laid back Saddleback format either


    And (4.00 / 1) (#126)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:44:51 PM EST
    while McCain may not be a great debater either, he will definitely get more snappy one liners that can be used as soundbites on the news and in commercials.  Obama will analyze every question to death and never give an answer.

    Sad as it may be, which do you think the voters will remember?


    Experience in debating (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:48:19 PM EST
    goes to McCain, and friends, that counts.

    From Howard Fineman ... (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:58:45 PM EST
    of all people, a relevant point:

    But if I were an Obama partisan I would be worried that his mistakes have a common thread - pride.

    Obama seems to want to do things on his own, and on his own terms. It's understandable. Obama has his own crowd - from Chicago, from Harvard, and from a new cadre of wealthy, Ivy-educated movers and shakers.

    "He's an arrogant S.O.B.," one of the latter told me today. "He wants to do it his way, and his way alone." But politics doesn't work that way. And has Obama should know, or is about to find out, that everyone needs a little help.

    This pride/ego meme is popping up a lot (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by davnee on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    Lots of pieces lately mentioning the ego/arrogance of Obama, even from pro-Obama sources.  What's the deal with that?  Are the rats jumping a sinking ship and reserving 'their told you so' credentials?  Or is this a genuine effort to get the Obama camp to change their ways?

    Note to Fineman: (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:08:46 PM EST
    But if I were an Obama partisan

    Didn't he mean to write: But if I were still an Obama partisan.

    Fineman is a fair weather friend, apparently.


    It's just (4.80 / 5) (#118)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    very, very hard to see Obama's refusal even to vet Hillary for a VP role as due basically to anything more than offended pride.

    Every other explanation comes out as simple rationalization.


    ITA (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by eleanora on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    with your ideas on Sen Obama, Sen Clinton, and Pres Clinton campaigning together in those states. And then I'd ask the Clintons to just hang out there until Nov. Obama/Biden has a good chance to take FL, better than I'd hoped! PA will probably come home to Dems, but OH and MI could use some coaxing.

    I'd love to see a bold gamechanger right about now. I'd hoped Obama and Biden would join up with Sens Clinton and Murray to go after this horrible HHS policy that equate birth control to abortion. We only have 15 days left before Leavitt finalizes that. Wouldn't a nice media splash be amazing, with all Congressional Dems working together and maybe marching from the Capitol to HHS? The cameras would love that.

    And it's win-win for us because McCain/Palin would have to answer some questions on birth control, which could sink them either with moderates or with fundies.

    Or what about a Perot-style primetime media hour on the economy? Obama and Biden could bring charts, take questions from the audience, maybe fill in with 30 second clips of the great Dem convention speeches, like Schweitzer and Gore and maybe Strickland?

    McCain isn't Bush and (none / 0) (#128)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM EST
    you aren't going to be able to tie his policies to Bush. Not with the Unity Schmoonity angle. The time to tie McCain(and the rest of the GOP) to Bush was months ago. Thanks to the politics of let's all hold hands, I don't see this as being effective.

    Post-partisan sucks, (none / 0) (#164)
    by eleanora on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    IMO, I hated that part and still do. Hillary would have done the tie-in better on the economy, because I even hear hard-right R's mourning the 90's, but I think Obama/Biden still have a good chance if they work it right. Most people are fed up with the Republicans, we just have to make them remember how good Democrats govern in the ways that matter most.

    I'm just hoping the Dem ticket's got something planned and will do it soon. I'm starting to worry about down-ticket races now. Begich and the Udalls aren't looking as strong as earlier, Kay Hagen slipped back behind Dole.


    Republicans for Hilary (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by SomewhatChunky on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:44:16 PM EST
    It's often said on this board that Hillary supporters would never vote for Palin or McCain Palin.  Maybe that's true for hardcore democrats, but one group of voters I don't see talked about very much are Republican women who would have voted for Hilary.  I think that was a fairly large group.

    I'm following this election closely and am constantly polling my female friends about their views.  I'm male and I learned along time ago that what I think women I know think and what they really think are often miles apart:)

    I live in Nevada and I have 4 female friends who are moderate Republicans who wanted to vote for Hilary.  They are now all for McCain/Palin.  They aren't radically left or right, choice is not a hot button issue - I think the word "moderate" is the right word to describe them.   They isn't any one thing they specifically liked about Hillary - it seems it was just the total package of competence, experience and the fact that she was a women.   They seem to like Palin personally and are disgusted with all the attacks on her.   But that's not why they are leaning towards McCain.  Obama just hasn't connected with this group.

    Does anyone think this group could account for part of the shift in the polls of woman's vote towards McCain?  What can be done about it?

    WJC as Adviser (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:45:06 PM EST
    No doubt that WJC can help Obama but only if Obama is willing to listen. Even Clinton's most ardent critic's will tell you he's just about the best political mind out there.

    I'm not convinced that the Obama camp sees anything wrong in the campaign to date. So why would they need help?

    Obama and McCain will (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    be at Columbia tonight.  Issue:  community activism.  LA Times will live blog:


    I just saw the Clip (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Bluesage on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:14:58 PM EST
    Of Bill Clinton and Obama together answering questions.  It does not look to me like Bill's heart is really into this.  When asked when he would be going out for Obama he said later in the month when his global initiative is done and Obama said "Gonna put him to work".  Bill looked a bit awkard and Obama looked a bit intimidated but still with that air of arrogance.  It was surreal.  

    September is a busy month (none / 0) (#186)
    by themomcat on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    for Pres. Clinton. His Global Initiative meetings coincide with the UN opening of the General Assembly. It makes it easier to meet with many of the heads of state and foreign ministers in NYC.

    Who holds the key (4.25 / 4) (#5)
    by Polkan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:39:49 PM EST
    If it's true that 3 blocks will decide this election (religious voters, independents and women), then we already know that McCain has the evangelical vote back. That leaves independents and women.

    Jay Cost makes a striking observation on how both campaigns changed their tactics on Palin.

    If all of the above is right, then what Obama really needs to do is use the efforts to make a strong economic appeal to tie back to and refresh his original message of "Change You Can Believe In".

    But you can't make the kind of change... (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST
    ... that I believe in  by trashing women. Not on.

    Nope, you can't (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:18:25 PM EST
    At this point the only thing that can help Obama are the forgiving and hard working Clintons.  Without them pulling hard for him I don't side with BTD that Obama will pull this thing off.  With them at his side he could.

    Call me cyncial but I really (none / 0) (#66)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    wonder how hard the Clinton's are really going to work for him.  Isn't it better for Hillary if he loses?  Then she can take another shot in 2012...  I wonder if this is going to be more of the appearance of support as opposed to actual support.

    Any thoughts?


    Hillary would rather have Obama in the WH (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    But Hillary and Bill are great politicians and they are not saviors.  Hillary made it clear that she was the most electable, and she did not say that because she was tooting her horn. Obama lost the message because he is a weak candidate.

    And let's face it, all of Hillary's negatives (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    were well know... Obama keeps stumbling back into his.  

    Let's see mock McCain on houses and you get Rezko, Bring up education reform and you get Ayers, Bring up Change and you get the Chicago machine (at least this one doesn't seem to have much traction... the whole country is used to Chicago being corrupt.. I'm so proud of my town! Ugh)

    Oh and I forgot, talk about Palin's inexperience to be vice president when 40% or so think she has more/better experience than he does!  Double Ugh!

    Hillary was definitely a known... and let's face it, love 'em or hate 'em... you have got to admit, the Clinton's know politics and political fights.


    The question is how hard is Obama (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    willing to work for himself?  His handlers forgot he didn't really win the nomination (all by himself) he rather won with inflated numbers in the red caucus states and with the help of the SD's.  Now he can't ask anyone to work for him if he isn't willing to admit he has to work harder than anyone and quit crying over the bad old Clintons, not doing enough.  Waaaa

    I hope my question didn't come across (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:58:05 PM EST
    as blaming the Clinton's if they don't take a bullet for Obama!

    I don't think they should have to, and I am not sure that they can, save him from himself and his more "aggressive" supporters!


    the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:57:08 PM EST
    can only campaign for Obama when and where he asks them to.  They can't go out on their own and just schedule events.

    They both have said repeatedly that they will campaign as much as Obama wants.

    Her campaign events for Obama have been well received.  there has be no talk that I have heard that she has put in any lackluster appearances on his behalf.

    I haven't seen any reports in the media at all that Obama has asked either of them to do a campaign event and been turned down.

    Hillary got a union in FL to endorse Obama just this week when they made her an honorary member.

    Does she have to juggle and balance plates on sticks during campaign stops in order to convince people she is serious?


    I am not trying to pick on them (none / 0) (#95)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    I just think it might be in their best interest if he does lose...

    Yes. Here's a thought: (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:21:08 PM EST
    the Clintons weren't the ones who went on vacation in the middle of a game-changing campaign.

    It doesn't bode well that Obama's work ethic looks a lot more like George Bush's than like the Clintons'...and no, I'm not kidding.


    Clinton campaigned for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    When he was on vacation.  After a grueling campaign, she deserved to take time off, but she was out doing what she could while Obama body surfed.
    Btw, McCain, a 72 year old has campaigned non-stop since last year.

    At one point (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by indy in sc on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    they switched the messaging to "Change that Works for You."  I liked that.  They should return to that and show how the change he is offering is the only one that is focused on working for the people.  McCain's "change" only involves a different cast with the same policies of the last 8 years.

    "Change That Works For You" (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by eleanora on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:03:34 PM EST
    I love that! And it ties so nicely into the Republicans driving the country into a ditch with their changes that worked for corporations, not people. A positive message that combines all the issues! :D

    Palinoscopy. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Salo on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:48:26 PM EST

    I like that soooo much! (3.00 / 0) (#18)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:55:53 PM EST

    This is her first and only interview (none / 0) (#40)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST
    that I'm aware of, are you a aware of any other upcoming times where she is actually going to take questions?

    Palin (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:14:02 PM EST
    Since she's been in the race, like, a week and half, no, I don't know of more interviews right now.  Do we know what interviews Obama and Biden will give in 3 weeks?

    Obama and Biden have given interviews (none / 0) (#74)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:43:34 PM EST
    and answered questions regularly from press and public..

    Palin has taken zero questions, and the McCain campaign explicitly said they would not be making her available for questions or interviews until the press were sufficiently "deferential". I'm certainly not holding out much hope that the ABC interview with Gibson will offer anything beyond soft focus lifestyle type questions about how tough it must be to be a mom of 5 and governor etc.


    I don't see it as she is everywhere (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:15:50 PM EST
    she is only new meat.  Americans continue to lose their homes and bucket loads of money right now trying to stay solvent in the new stagflation.  She can be a momentary distraction from the pain but she is no cure for the pain that is daily and even hourly.

    Democrats should vet their candidates (none / 0) (#94)
    by luvstotango on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    I'm frustrated.  We really need two strong Democrat and Republican parties.

    I'm tired of Republican leaders abusing me, because they know, I have no real alternative.   The reticence among Democrats, and the MSM, to really know all about your POTUS candidate, before you commit to them, is killing America's two-party system.

    Just like your website rules, not allowing trolls, is your perogative..... but putting your head in the sand, will only allow for more weak Democrat candidates to get almost to the finish line, and then implode, when truth/smears come out about him or her....and then we're stuck with a Republican again that can shaft his base, again and again.  

    Please demand your candidates get vetted by your media, before jumping into bed with an unknown, with critical flaws.  

    I'm a conservative, not a Republican...the reason this is important, is because I can check out a candidates' credentials, BEFORE I commit to him.

    I was glad to (none / 0) (#138)
    by JThomas on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:56:59 PM EST
    hear Bill Clinton express confidence in Obama's ability to win in November today. When asked about Obama's chances Bill said

    '' I believe that Obama will win and win handily''

    Way to go Bill.
    I look for Bill and Obama to be on the trail in Ohio,Michigan,Pa. and Florida soon.

    btw...I agree with Bill...he is a very smart politician.

    Do you (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:23:07 PM EST
    think he would say anything else?

    That's why Bill and Hillary can't help (none / 0) (#181)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:01:56 PM EST
    Their view will be seen as partisan talk.  That's how I see it, and I love them both. I just don't like Obama.

    Brownshirt tactics (none / 0) (#175)
    by Fen on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:50:21 PM EST
    4 post limit for posters advocating the McCain-Palin ticket.  

    Ya know, this seems so silly to me. I'm new and I've respected your rules and haven't trolled or posted more than 4 per day.

    But are you really going to ban your regular commenters if they begin arguing the merits of a McCain-Palin ticket?

    Don't you see that this is the reason the Left stagnates?

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:38:34 PM EST
    So the reason the Left stagnates is because they the limit campaigning for a Conservative politician?  

    Why don't you try and do some Obama campaigning over at RedState and see how long you last.

    Love the brownshirt comment.  It is so over the top it's amusing.


    Electoral map is not good (none / 0) (#179)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    Obama has lost his advantage.  PA is close, and it shouldn't be. NV has old polls.  FL is McCain's. I don't see the map being good for Obama. The map reflects McCain's rise since Palin.

    At this point (none / 0) (#183)
    by Bluesage on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:07:18 PM EST
    Obama should not need Bill and Hillary Clinton to prop him up and sell him to the voters.  He should be able to go out there and convince the voters that he is the best person for the job and he just can't seem to do that. Obama had a very easy ride in the primary with the media, the DNC, the SD's and all the Clinton haters carrying him but now he has to do the work and he just does not seem interested.  There are no caucuses and super-delegate in the general - he needs to do the work but I don't think he will.  He's beginning to look like a deer in the headlights and that needs to change Now.

    Hillary Health Care Plan (none / 0) (#187)
    by WS on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:25:20 PM EST
    Accepting Hillary's health care plan should be a part of any campaigning with the Clintons.  He can put down the pride meme thats going around (although I do see arrogance in him) and bringing up "Hillary's health care plan" every time health care is mentioned should put McCain on the defensive.  McCain can attack "Hillarycare" again in a derisive manner and it'll bring up that McCain is against Hillary and her issues.  

    I have read articles here accusing AK Governor Sarah Palin!
    I have news for you. saraj palin;s string religios Evangelical background comes with
    PRO-Israel .  All Evangelicals believe to keep israel's independence to the end of the wolrd!
    So Are you people telling me A Muslim born than converted to Christianity, Barrack Hussein Obama with Palestenian friends such as Rhasid Khalidi, Hatem El Hady and with hamas endorsements and his hate education from his pastor rev Jeremiah Wright calling Israel state terrorism, Jews and Israel will be better off!
    I don't think so!
    Actually Jews are very strong supporters of McCain/Palin in FL this week!
    McCain/Palin will win by a landslide victory in November!