Since Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from the race, Barack Obama has gotten about a five-point bounce in state-by-state polling.
I've said before that if John McCain continues to campaign as if he's not interested in winning, that he's going to get clobbered, if for no other reason than the political climate, despite Obama's glaring weaknesses as a general election candidate. That now appears to be coming to fruition.
And I was talking to an Illinois GOP County Chairman yesterday who said to me, "I've never heard so many Republicans who are disappointed with the nominee." I'm noticing the same thing.
UPDATE: More, from Real Clear Politics. This is starting to feel like Bob Dole redux.
That's funny others are saying that they were surprised Obama's bounce was only 5%. I guess you must be in the we must let the democrats burn it down so we can win in the next election and fix it crowd of the GOP. Letting the democrats have it so they can screw it up so we can win in the next election sure seems like a risky idea to me. There is no guarantee that the democrats will be voted out for poor performance. We only have to look at our own corrupt Governor to see that people don’t always vote the bums out. With the Supreme Court up for grabs and the balance of the court giving us decisions like the last one on Gitmo it’s not time to give up now. Let alone going back to the failed National Security Policy that says we call the police after the crimes been committed and send the Osama Bin Laden’s of the world to Court as has been suggested by Obama National Security advisors. I have already talked about how we can’t after all the sacrifices of our troop’s now just hand it over to someone who has already decided to pull those troops out no matter what it looks like in Iraq now.
"I guess you must be in the we must let the democrats burn it down so we can win in the next election and fix it crowd of the GOP."
Please don't put words in my mouth.
If you take a look at the polls, you can see that McCain only has an edge on security and foreign policy issues. Obama leads on all the other issues. McCain's going to do his best to make this election a referendum on security and foreign policy issues (and Obama's alleged weakness in same) because it's the only game they've got.
It's gonna be a very tough sell, though, given how the "terrrrrism" hot button has been worn to a nub by the current occupant any time they wanted something done -- in particular as an excuse to sell a falsely pretensed war 66% of Americans now think wasn't worth the price, not to mention the cost. (Remember when it was only the hippies on Prospect who said that?)
http://pollingreport.com/wh08.htm
Interesting stuff there. In a "change" election, people see Obama as an agent of change more than 2 to 1 over McCain.
And here's another interesting one. McCain is trying to sell the "Obama wants to meet with our enemies" bit as bumper-sticker "evidence" that Obama's bad for security. So let's ask America:
"Some people say a president should NOT meet with leaders of foreign countries that are hostile toward the United States, because it could reward their behavior and make the U.S. look weak. Others say a president SHOULD be willing to meet with leaders of foreign countries that are hostile toward the United States because talking can improve relations and avoid confrontation. Which of these views comes closer to your own?"
Should not meet: 20%; should meet: 77%. http://pollingreport.com/defense.htm#Affairs
In other words, not even half his supporters think he's right. So good luck with that one, McCain.
Obama starts off the summer campaign as a big fat LIAR. Suprised? Not really. After all, he's a Chicago Democrat.
... despite Obama's glaring weaknesses as a general election candidate.
I'd be interested in hearing what you think the glaring weaknesses are.
Umm...dishonesty? His first promise to voters is already broken. Thanks for that Chicago-style "change", Barry!
Isn't McCain having almost the exact same problem? That doesn't make it ok, but it certainly would behoove you to temper your hollow rhetoric.
From ILvoter's LIAR link to The Hill:
"At a debate in Cleveland during the Democratic nomination battle, Obama committed to meeting with McCain to discuss a way both candidates could make the public financing system work for them, as pointed out by one reporter at the breakfast.
Bauer (Obama's general counsel) said such a meeting never took place prior to the decision, but he added that he did meet with McCain’s general counsel, Trevor Potter, about two weeks ago.
Bauer said he surmised from that meeting that the McCain campaign was more interested in using the issue for political gain than holding any meaningful discussion."
Isn't it curious to see a Republican criticize a Democrat for seeking private versus public financing for anything?
Isn't it curious to see a Republican criticize a Democrat for seeking private versus public financing for anything?
Not when it is "the Maverick" John McCain.
Obama started hedging his rhetoric on public financing quite a while ago. I have no doubt that the McCain campaign was ready and willing to beat him over the head with it. No reason for the McCain campaign to make it easy on them. Is there an element of pure politics at work here? Absolutely. Was Obama the first to start backing down from public financing though? Yuppers.
In the end the only people who will really care that much are already fairly solidly in a camp. The undecided voters likely won't care, or won't really understand, what the commotion is about. In the end it's an Obama victory, no matter how much McCain tries to beat him over the head with it... because in the end, Obama has more money to sell his message to the undecided voters.
Right/wrong... *shrug*... this is politics! :-)
ILvoter... and it's not the first big lie. The first big lie was that he was going to complete his full senate term and promising unequivocably to not run for President in 2008. Normally that's not a big deal. All candidates say they're not running or say they're not really looking that far ahead etc etc.
The problem for Obama is he made it a point that he'd be too inexperienced to do so. I agree with him on that.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
...and it's not the first big lie. The first big lie was that he was going to complete his full senate term and promising unequivocably to not run for President in 2008.
- Glock, you're totally right here. I stand corrected.
Well, I'm a horribly inexperienced firefighter and would not be the first person to toss down my LCD projector and pick up a firehose, but if the only alternative is gasoline boy, I'd do it out of civic duty.
I don't see how any of these examples have anything to do with Obama's ability to govern. His "first big lie" was long after McCain's, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Which was not only about as bigoted as a human being can speak, but also he contradicted himself once politics caught up with him.
But hey, I, and the vast majority of Asian Americans I know will not vote for McCain as long as we live. If you don't adhere to the same principles, that's all good--it's a matter of perspective, but forgive me if I eyeroll a bit about these gotchas on Obama. There's nothing in his past anywhere close to "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Isn't McCain having almost the exact same problem? That doesn't make it ok, but it certainly would behoove you to temper your hollow rhetoric.
- Um, no. McCain has stated repeatedly that he is ready and willing to take public financing if the Democrat was willing to do so also. As soon as Obama saw the ca$h potential of going it alone, he started to backtrack on his promise, and officially broke it this morning. Now that you have the facts, xian, hopefully it will "behoove you to temper your hollow" retorts on this issue.
Has anyone counted up the broken promises by Obama so far?
One speaks to out of control ambition and inexperience. The other to resentment after years of torture. I leave it to the voter, including asian-americans, which is more likely to have a negative consequence for them. Especially since McCain's apology was generally accepted as heartfelt and sincere at the time and, given his record, not something that appears to have effected any of his policy decisions, including normalizing relations with those people he'll hate for the rest of his life.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Quick Xian...DEFLECT! DEFLECT!! A clear sign you know you've lost.
There's nothing in his past anywhere close to "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
Huh...I guess that xian forgot to mention that McCain was specifically referring to the captors that tortured him for over 5 years. A p.c. statement? Nope. Understandable? I've never been a POW so I can't really say, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. You are correct, though, about Obama having nothing comparable in his past. McCain spent years in a POW camp, and Obama spent years frolicking on Hawaii's beaches.
Are you going to tell us now that sacrifice, like honesty, has nothing to do with the ability to govern?
Indiana is blue on that map. As in, the state of Indiana.
Who does that? Who responds to themselves a half dozen times in a row and then throws a tantrum about the other person "deflecting".
Glock introduced other topics--that's fine, this is a casual blog conversation, not a formal debate. I merely responded. Because you are a dick, you went nuts on me. Stop being a dick.
One speaks to out of control ambition and inexperience. The other to resentment after years of torture.
I disagree. It speaks to ambition-which both candidates have, not "out of control ambition".
McCain had already passed the limits of public spending when he offered to forgo it. Furthermore, he used the public funding to secure a loan. He clearly played both sides, and probably broke federal law in doing so. He basically did the same thing as Obama--talked about public funding until he saw that he could raise more money the other way--except for he did things that committed himself formula to BOTH systems. I believe that both candidates are far beyond the spending limits, so neither has any right to posture on this issue at this time.
Here's another summary of the situation.
The version of the story you are parroting back is the framing of McCain's aide. As I said, it is missing a good portion of the facts.
I don't have a problem if you read more on the situation so you have something approaching my understanding--there's certainly more with a better understanding than I have--but in the mean time, could you stop blaming and attacking me for your own ignorance on the issue?
Furthermore, I have the utmost respect for McCain's military service. However, it is simply hilarious that you would compare his years in the POW camp with Obama's years when he was "frolicking on the beach". Obama was six when McCain was in the POW concentration camp. That's a really strange comparison to make. In the proceeding time, Obama has been a leader in community organizing in a massive, problem-laden urban American city. If he had emerged from that experience angry at mainstream American oppression, that certainly wouldn't have been unusual. If he had launched into hate-filled tirades against those who have maintained utter racial segregation in Chicago, it wouldn't have been unusual. However, it would make me question his presidential ability. That didn't happen.
McCain has every reason to be angry at his captors. However, where is the statesperson-like persona that must necessarily be part of a president's skillset? How would you have felt if John Edwards slung the N-word around on the campaign trail (yeah, right)? This wasn't a joke; it wasn't satire or sarcasm--this was the intentional use of a racial slur as bad as exists.
Obama is not a God. He is not the savior of our system. Quite the opposite--I spend more energy resisting the Chicago Democratic machine before 5am than most of this blog has in their entire lives--so I'm completely acquainted with Obama's faults.
However, these constant hatchet jobs I see against on this site become tiresome. The incivility grows exhausting. Pompous political posturing perhaps presents promised pinch-hitting per pint-sized penicular problems. But it does nothing for American democracy.
However, these constant hatchet jobs I see against on this site become tiresome. The incivility grows exhausting. Pompous political posturing perhaps presents promised pinch-hitting per pint-sized penicular problems. But it does nothing for American democracy.
I kept waiting for this kind of response from you to D Boon's video in the open thread.
I'm not sure where you're getting all of these comparisons I made... i was pointing out that they were different issues with different reasons for concern.
"pint-sized penicular problems"
Me and my small penis are done with this conversation. Thanks for the chat. It's been lovely.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Me and my small penis are done with this conversation. Thanks for the chat. It's been lovely.
Hey, I wasn't talking about your small penis. I was talking about IL Voter's small penis in a thoughtful and poetic fashion. I responded to you quite civilly.
I kept waiting for this kind of response from you to D Boon's video in the open thread.
I can't watch video from work. If it's the same type of stereotypical crap that Gordy responded with, I've made my feelings on that very clear. I also don't understand why I have to be on this site 24 hours a day responding to your every whim.
Looked a lot like you were not going to rip a liberal poster for the same things you hammer conservatives on.
But if you couldn't watch the video, I will give this perceived lack of consistency a pass.
RSW no need for the pass same old same old. Obama is doing what he does best, say one thing do another. You can add he said he would debate McCain anywhere anytime now he wants to debate on the 4th of July.
Looked a lot like you were not going to rip a liberal poster for the same things you hammer conservatives on.
But if you couldn't watch the video, I will give this perceived lack of consistency a pass.
Yes, well it's true, but I'd argue that it's a consistency--I don't rip things I can't witness.
LOL! Xian has to now resort to pathetic personal attacks. Yet ANTOHER sign that he know's he lost on the issues.
IP, are you going to allow this kind of behavior on your blog? I hope not.
"IP, are you going to allow this kind of behavior on your blog? I hope not."
I thought it was pretty funny, actually. You can get away with a lot more on here if you appeal to my sense of humor.
LOL! Xian has to now resort to pathetic personal attacks. Yet ANTOHER sign that he know's he lost on the issues.
I'm not certain what "issues" he has "lost" on, considering the best you can come up with is half-hearted attacks about a candidate who initially made a promise, but then came along a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and chose not to pass it up. Surely a free-market, capitalist-type isn't actually begrudging someone for jumping on a golden opportunity and letting the market (voters) decide what is best. I'm sure you're the type who, when presented the opportunity to interview for your dream job and have been told you've got a decent shot at getting it says, "no thanks, I made a promise to this employer 2 years ago that I'd work for them for 6 years."
If you want to see someone who lost, I'd suggest looking at the person who can't come up with any real reasons to not vote for a candidate other than the fact that they said one thing with a limited set of facts, and when new facts presented themselves, opted to actually take that into consideration and adapt accordingly. I suspect you'd prefer a strategy of "stay the course". How's that working for the Republicans again? Of course, there is no comment from you about McCain's sleight-of-hand in playing both sides, so I guess you'll just ignore that and deflect yourself? There's some saying about glass houses and stones that I think applies here, I just can't come up with it.
Thanks for playing, though. We have some lovely parting gifts of guns, religion and bitterness for you to cling to instead of the reality that things are broke and while Obama may not be the best answer, he's a lot better than your answer.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm