Here's the problem I'm seeing with Obama's campaign:

He's not making a case against conservatism. Conservatism is the problem not specifically Bush. Conservatism has failed the country. Anyone who holds the conservative philosophy will fail the country.

Unlike BTD, it was also a part of why I supported Hillary Clinton. Hillary was able to really convince me she cared about the issues important to me and clearly explain her policies.

I don't think Obama is as good at doing the same by a long shot. His slip of the tongue with Bill O'Reilly last night ("the surge succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations") is yet more evidence of that. His speech is highly nuanced and open to wide interpretation, that Republicans will use to their advantage.

While BTD always believed, correctly, that Obama was the media darling, I never felt that was enough to win an election. Hillary proved time and again her ability to attract people based on the issues. This is how Democrats win elections, when issues trump personalities.

My point is this; Obama would have better luck pinning the Bush 3rd term label on McCain if he was, at the same time, doing a better idea of communicating what would be NEW (not just reactive, nostalgic or "historic") about an Obama presidency. What unique, new programs? What new challenges will be top priority? What is his unique vision for the nation's future?

W ran as a "compassionate conservative" and backed those words up with specific programs; "the faith based initiative," "no child left behind."

Clinton ran on "building a bridge to the 21st Century" and backed it up with job retraining, programs to make education more affordable, etc.

On the fundamental question of the economy, what is McCain's difference from Bush?  He's going to cut earmarks.  How in God's name is he going to balance the budget by cutting earmarks -- earkmarks which HE himself has gotten, and that Sarah Palin has accepted.

BTW, it's not just that Palin was FOR the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. Even after she was against it, she didn't say thanks but no thanks to the money. She took the money to use for something else.

So much for McCain's big economic difference from Bush.  Everything else he wants to do -- cut taxes, cut taxes, drill, drill, cut taxes, drill, cut taxes, a "get government out of the way of interfering" with peoples' economic difficulties -- is the same as Bush.

John Edwards = eradication of poverty
Hillary Clinton = UHC
Dennis Kucinich = against abuse of executive power
McCain = national security

Heck, I can even tell you that Ron Paul = very little government / pull out of Iraq.

It makes McCain more the " Generic Republican" than "the 3rd Bush."

And how does he respond?  We havn't failed? (see mental recession, nation of whiners)

McCain, who hates Bush  on so many levels, will not allow his presidency to be attached to George W. in any way, but the Democrats must make people know that McCain is no maverick, no trailblazer.

In order to lock up the election, Obama must focus on his plans to fix the economy.

This should be easy, because McCain's economic plan is dismal.

He offers no immediate tax relief.  And no immediate plan to deal with high energy costs.  All his plans are long term.

Obama's economic plan is clearly superior.  But I don't think it's been effectively communicated. And that's what he needs to do to lock down the key swing states, especially Michigan and Ohio.

I'm clearly in the minority but frankly, I found McCain's speech better than I expected it to be, or rather, not as terrible as it could have been.  I don't think anyone was expecting rhetorical flourishes.  He didn't mangle it and he had some effective lines.  I thought the close was a masterpiece of emotional manipulation; it was a very deftly structured speech.  

Furthermore, he really looked terrific - all praise to his makeup team - and presented as gritty yet puckish (among other things).

But what he did best was carve out space as the legitimate critic of his own party, or at least of the current officeholders.  I'm not hearing about that portion of his speech, which I think took much of the sting out of the charge that equates him to Bush's 3rd term.  That moment may have passed.

The speech that Governor Palin gave was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush's speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George Bush for the last eight years. If Governor Palin and John McCain want to define 'change' as voting with George Bush 90% of the time, that's their choice, but we don't think the American people are ready to take a 10% chance on change.

In order to get that as a three day average, Thursday's total would have to be McCain over Obama 48-44.  Obama had been at 50 points for three days in a row and McCain at about 45.

As the good Obama days drop off, McCain will improve in the average.

McCain should have the lead in Rasmussen by Sunday....

If you were wondering what that building was behind McCain on the sceren during his speech, it was Walter Reed Middle School in CA.

In answer to your first question, unless both McCain and Obama start speaking of what they will do and how they will do it rather than regurgitating talking points and empty rhetoric, I will likely vote for neither.

In answer to your second question, I will vote for the other offices on the ballot and likely will vote against every incumbent regardless of party.

I have been voting for some 48 years and in all that time I have never been one to blindly follow a party line and at this point in my life, I have no intention to start.

The incumbents, of both parties, have enabled Bush to run the country into the ground.  The democrats are especially deserving of scorn because they have done nothing to curtail the worthless bastard.  (pardon my language)

They have tried to play it safe for the past two years despite promising to put a leash on the Bush/Cheney disaster.  They have done this in the hope that if they let the country go further down the road to disaster they would have a better chance at the White House in 2008.

Pelosi and Reid are almost as despicable and incompetent as Bush, IMO.