Looking at the national Obama/McCain polls, Gallup has a good breakdown of the various groups and regions and how Obama and McCain are each faring right now. Obama is winning women, younger voters (and is tied on middle-aged voters), minorities - including Hispanics, and lower-income voters. So at least some of the stereotypes of Obama voters based solely on the primaries is misleading.

From an electoral college perspective, the "tie" at the national level may be very misleading, because McCain's support is coming very strongly from the South. Obama is strongly leading or leading in the other 4 regions.

Gallup Analysis of National polls

This morning NBC reported that Obama has a 6 point lead in the popular vote. However, McCain leads in the electoral college vote by 220 - 185. My guess is that's going to change many times between now and November, but it's very likely we'll see another nailbiter election with just a few states being the difference.

I think this is total BS. Look at your user name. You are a Republican trolling this board.

Not that there is anything wrong with arguing for conservative views. But don't pretend you're a liberal independent when you're obviously not.

Yup...and that is the issue. We've seen from the primaries that Obama's team is very good at organizing and will be very focused on new voters and an overall get out the vote strategy that will probably be like nothing ever seen, but its the electoral college that elects, not the popular vote and thats why his Vice Presidential pick is so crucial. But it is an issue he needs to worry about. Definitely an uphill climb but once those two are on stage and they make their policies clear, I'm hoping that most of the upset Hillary supporters will know that Obama best represents their interests.

If you were pro-Hillary, then you don't really need all the gory details you claim you need about Obama's policies and ideaology because they are razor-thin close. Your automatic 2nd choice should be Obama if you were being truthful. Also, you wouldn't be so pumped about how she ran her campaign when it did not matter because that has NOTHING to do with all the details you think are so precious to make your decision. You got off your talking points when you were exposed.

You never answered my question about Supreme Court nominees. There's a clear difference between McCain and Obama especially for women and gays.

JohhnyMac appears to be a fraud using Republican talking points.

Well at least he/she was exposed. I'm guessing another new screenname will pop up soon asking the same questions. Be on the lookout. At least next time I'd advise the person to call him/herself BearsFan88 or something and begin with a handful of posts in another forum before going directly to Politics & Religion and posting that he/she finds McCain "an interesting choice because I have so many questions about Obama."

Back to the discussion for a minute.... both MSNBC and CNN the other night said the electoral map works this way: Obama and McCain each begin with 200 electoral votes. Chuck Todd even said last night that the way the map is looking, it's much more plausible that Obama wins -- based only on what we know right now -- because he has more leaning states than McCain.

I'm thinking a good V.P. pick would be Ted Strickland of Ohio. His selection would make it very, very tough for the Republicans to win Ohio... and as every analyst has pointed out, there is zero chance of the Repugs winning if they don't take the Buckeye state. At the very least, as Todd noted, Obama picking Strickland would require that the Repugs pump millions and millions of campaign dollars into Ohio, leaving them less equipped to fight elsewhere. Of course all of this could be trumped by McCain picking Romney as a running mate, meaning the Dems will need to fight harder for Michigan than usual. I can't help but think though that Michigan will be a blue state once again no matter what; today's news of the highest monthly jump in unemployment in 22 years is certainly not going to help the Repugs.

While picking Strickland MAY (and that is a big question mark) help Obama carry Ohio - he brings little else to the table. Obama needs someone with a solid record on foreign or military affairs. On the other hand, if you are looking for someone who can carry a swing state (or make it competitive so that the GOP diverts resources to defend) - I would look to the Virginia candidates like Webb or Warner or even Kaine.

I think a smarter strategy is to compete heavily in states like Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and maybe Georgia where with Barr in the race polling 11% - Obama could carry a pluraity. Georgia has a 30% black and 7 % hispanic population. Picking off a few of those red states could allow Obama to win without Ohio and Florida.

I think it would be a tremendous mistake to go into the general election already conceding Ohio and Florida. That makes it incredibly difficult for Obama and would really require wins in almost all the toss-up states. I agree that Virginia looks possible for a Dem win (but the odds there are no better than 50-50)... and I'd never bank on Georgia becoming a blue state this year.

I think Florida is extremely doubtful for Obama. The state's been trending more and more Republican, especially the Orlando - Tampa corridor. Charlie Crist is a popular Governor and will work hard for McCain, who has a very large natural constituency in active and retired military personnel living in the state. Obama would need a huge turnout in Plam Beach, Broward and Dade counties to overcome that, but one of the largest voting blocs in the tri-county area are Jews, and there is still distrust of Obama in the Jewish community.

I think Obama would have much better luck trying to pick off Virginia, which actually has started to trend Democratic, and which has a large, energized African-American population.

If the Democrats use 2000 and 2004 strategies they will face the same result.

Obama is too smart for that.

Excellent points by MM.

Fantomas, thanks so much for answering my questions. I shall reply when I have a few more minutes.

I am just curious how one could say any of my questions were Republican Operative?

My goal was to ask to Obama supports why he is the better choice when people still seem to be on the fence with him when I look at the total picture of this election. It would make no sense to ask of McCain's downfall when I have not seen a republican point of view.

I already know that I agree with just about all of his social policies, I am just have trouble finding out where he stands on the major issues in this election. I see this election being more important to focus on economics/Iraq.

My support of Hillary in the primaries was mainly due to the fact that you know what you get from the Clintons as far as economics and what has already been done.

With that said, It's been years since i've voted for a president that came from either of these parties in years. To me both parties have put up terrible candidates forever. As far as other positions, i fully admit to switching back and forth depending on the candidate.

I believe this election is going to come down to Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. That is where many of my question were formed with his problems in the voting bases.

Not me talking out of my ass or being pompous, but citing real info and polls: Obama's support among Latinos appears to be very strong (from the LA Times).

Well thank God this is over. At least now we have intellegent humans running for office. The only thing better would be Obama and Cain running as the president and VP. What a great team. New fresh ideas from OBama, (domestic issues) and learned experience from Cain, (as commander in chief) to keep us safe from all the buttholes in the world.
Unfortuately, after almost a year and a half of this election crap, we still have six months to go. And the coverage will just snow-ball until that November Tuesday.
I'm ready for it to be over so the country can get back to the serious issues like the economy and security.

Now I know we all focus on the president canidates to choose from. But remember guys---many congressional seats are also up for grabs. We need to spend just as much time in considering our selection for them as well as the president.
We need to spend equal time considering our senators and congressmen on the federal level and even others on the state and local level. With our constitutional checks-and -balance system, these seats are just as important.

And on a more personal note. Our federal constitution states, ...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I've always considered the right to be married, (gay or straight) to be included in the, (...pursuit of happiness) part. As a U.S. citizen, this is our right!

In conclusion, if you don't vote for me, I'll send Rosie O'Donell to your house for a year. I'm sorry if it comes to that but thats the price you pay.

Couldn't agree with you more. Down ballot officials are just as important this year. We have a great example here in TX in the Senate race. Sen. John Cornyn is running for re-election this year. His opponent is Rick Noriega, an Afghanistan war veteran who still actively serves in the Texas National Guard. He stands a chance to beat Sen. Cornyn, who many consider Bush's lapdog. Cornyn has followed Bush's position even when his own party opposes Bush. Cornyn is worthless as a Texas senator and needs to be replaced. We've never had a candidate viable enough to make that happen. Until now.

That's one of the reasons I've be coaching Clinton supporters who've threatened to not show up in Nov. because of their hatred for Obama (people get over this stuff). By not showing up for the big race they hurt the down ballots. Blue state thinking happens when the entire state turns blue, not just the Electoral College.

Hillarys' speech is on in about 20 minutes. 12:oopm east coast time, 9:00am, out west here.

I wonder if she'll be introduced as "the next President of the United States" the way she was on Tuesday night.

The make up sex starts for the Democrats today.

Hillary better make it good if she wants to have any success at seeking the Democratic nomination for POTUS again!

I don't want to hear any wishy washy foolishness from her. I want a speech that leaves me convinced she is truly behind Barack and truly seeks to unite the party.

I'm not sure where she's going with this speech. It's the start of mending the fences. If she repeats it enough times do you think her supporters will finally get the message?

Okay speech. Not an Obama thriller. However no word of releasing the delegates. I know a lot of TX state delegates are in Austin right now waiting for the word. They want to cross to Obama but respect their commitment to Clinton and the people that elected them to that spot. She needs to finish the task and release the delegates.

Well, did it work for you?

Its a good start kick. I agree that she has to acknowledge the huge support she had behind her. Its important to acknowledge their commitment to her, their belief in her, and to understand that its about the similar direction that Clinton and Obama share for this country. Look...she didn't have to do it. She could've remained stubborn because like it or not...she's got a lot of power. But, she has to take her own political legacy and future goals into consideration as well. So don't be mistaken...she's doing it for Obama but she's also doing it for herself. Like a said...it was a good first start. Wasn't great but ya know...I know this is tough for her. She was the "inevitable" candidate and its got to hurt. So...we'll see what happens. I know that many of her voters are upset right now but once McCain and Obama get on stage together and get into debates people can see that there is a clear difference in their policies and vision. So if you voted for Hillary I'm hoping they look at the similar policies and vote Obama. I know some won't vote because he's black and because they just aren't sure about him and because they feel as though Hillary was robbed by a sexist media that for the most part they believe gave him a free pass. There will be lots of reasons people who are Hillary supporters will come up with. The divide is deep but the first step on the road to unity has begun.

The Texas Two-Step is finally over. Obama won TX in delegates with a 99-94 split of the delegates. That doesn't count our supers (14-14 split with 4 undecided) or the 3 add-ons we have (to be announced later today). There is a controversy going on regarding the add-ons. We have traditionally given one of the add-ons to the president of the TX AFL-CIO. This year the president, a female supporter of Clinton, has been shoved out of the process by the Obama organizers. Now that may seem trivial but it's going against our traditional process and flies in the face of party unity.

Apparently this is being spearheaded by some promises the Obama organizers (from out of state) made to some Obama supporters. Obama has won and giving this add-on to the labor president would be a great hand reach of unity. Let's hope they get it figured out. Party unity works both ways.

I have to admit I was very impressed with Hillary's speech. It was probably the best speech she's ever given, in fact. She hit all the right notes... strong enough to start the healing, but not over-the-top in praise, which would have further angered her supporters. Her speech delivery style has definitely improved over the stretch of this campaign, and she did command the stage. I have to hand it to her because this was going to be tough to deliver and she had to walk a fine line to make everyone happy. I think she did it.

She did an excellent job. It was a well-written speech delivered perfectly. She secured her political future, which is what this was all about. In two months she will be praised effusively for all she was villified for the past two months. The most amazing thing about politics is the short memories.

Here's my take. Hillary is pretty smart, and she knows she is not going to be President this time around. I, even as an Obama supporter from the start, believe that she will work hard for his election.

So what does Hillary want?-----she wants to make History. She has lived in Bill's shadows and on his coattails for so long, and sacrificed so much, that she wants her place in American History. Being the first woman to "come close" in a primary race is an admirable and unprecedented accomplishment, but it does not get logged in the American History record books. So, how to do that? Given that Geraldine Ferraro was the first female VP candidate---there's only one way left.

I think Hillary is holding on to her delegates, and has cut a deal with the Obama campaign, to become the first woman ever to have her name placed into nomination at a major party convention for the Presidency. The votes won't be there, she won't win. But she'll officially be in the record books as a "first".

The only reason I can imagine for her to hold onto the delegates - other than the macabre scenario of harm coming to Obama - is to have a stronger say in the party platform.

Don't know how that all works but she has legitimate differences with Obama on some issues she has worked on for a long time: healthcare being the primary one that comes to mind.

To force oneself onto a nominee as a VP would be counterproductive for him and for her. Surely she will eventually realize that. Though many people close to her are claiming she currently does not.

Edit to add: BTW another possible protection from harm for Obama is the fact that, unlike MLK, he has actually earned the votes - and trust - of a record number of multi-ethnic Americans, the Clintons' claims to the contrary (they exclude or miscount caucuses). And, unlike in the case of the Kennedys, we are more aware of the threat.

Secret ballots allow individuals to express how they feel without public pressure. And even most caucuses are not open to the press, and pressure, of public scrutiny; only to the contest of ones fellow voters in relatively open debate. It is that controlled openness that has been the life-blood of Barack Obama's campaign. It is probably safe to say that if the national election could be a national caucus in which every voting district divided into neighborhood caucuses, even the Wright affair could not prevent Obama's election.

The new Newsweek poll just came out tonight, and Obama has the largest lead he's held over McCain. Yes it's still early, but this new poll shows Obama leading nationally 51 to 36%. That's a tremendous margin.

CNN/USAToday/Gallup also released a poll today showing Obama with a 50% to 44% national lead among likely voters. That poll showed Obama leading big over McCain on both coasts as well as in the midwest. The only region of the country where McCain is leading is in the south.

And it's also totally irrelevant, and any of us who even remotely believes this is a fool. Does anyone here remember the same Newsweek poll that showed Mondale leading Reagan by 18% at roughly the same time? Guess what happened in that election? Yup, a 49-state landslide.

We'd be wise to be very worried about Obama's chances, guys. If I had to put money on this election, I'd say McCain will win, and not for the reasons mentioned elsewhere in this section.

Now ask me whom I support, and I'd have to explain how both fed up and sad I am over the General Election this year.

I can't stand the smell of elephants, and I feel like kicking the donkey in the ass.

The early polls are pretty much irrelavant, at this early stage of the race, BUT it is interesting and somewhat encouraging to me. Polls are a snapshot in time of a moment. Alot can and probably will happen between now and November, and some of us remember what happened with Dukakis' early double digit lead over former Bush I recall. This race will get closer no doubt, another BUT, everything I have been reading so far points to the fact that far more people see McBushs age as an issue, than do people view Obama and race as an issue. So it is Obamas' race to lose IMO. I am still the person who sees the glass, his glass as half full however, and I am confident once he gets out there more, and we get into the debates, more people will start to feel more comfortable about Obama and his stands on the issues, more than some do now. WE have to win this race, there is just a MILLION reasons why we can't let McBush take this election. The Supreme Court and Justice appointments come to mind for one!

A few days after the Newsweek poll came out showing Obama with a 15% lead, a new LA Times-Bloomberg poll came out showing Obama with that exact same lead (15%) when Nader and Barr are in the mix. Without those two, the LA Times poll shows Obama up by 12% nationally. Those are consistent numbers.

Yes the election is just over 4 months away. However, as I've heard on both MSNBC and CNN when these polls have been discussed, something is very important about current polling vs. the polling of the 1980s. Lots of naysayers like to use the Carter-Mondale-Dukakis analogies, even though they're outdated. There were polling experts who said the 'science' of polling (and yes, there is a science of polling) has improved greatly and the questions are now more in-depth and constructed in such a way as to obtain better results than we had 20+ years ago. The experts were saying that this fact, combined with the fact that we're a much more polarized country now than we were 25 years ago, makes things easier to predict. They also made the point that the polling during the Bush/Clinton years has been pretty spot-on with hardly any fluctuation between the numbers at all in the months leading up to Election Day.

If I were a McCain supporter, I would be very worried right now. Rigging the voting machines is likely their best hope so I'm sure there are plans afoot to do just that.

Four new state polls came out today: Obama leads in all 4 states. Obama by 17% in Minnesota, Obama by 13% in Wisconsin, Obama by 6% in Michigan, and Obama by 5% in Colorado, a red state with a great chance of turning blue in 2008.

And Barack is employing a 50 state strategy, which means McBush is going to have to defend EVERYWHERE...no where, no state will be safe. Smart plan. I like it!!!!

While national polls are practically meaningless, this one ought to scare you Carter II supporters. Once Americans realize the truth, that Obama is the most extreme leftist the Democratic Party has ever nominated, they'll reject him as easily as they rejected Mondull and other Socialists. Once they realize that without his teleprompter or other aids pulling his strings, he's as incoherent as that babbling milquetoast we currently have, they'll vote for McCain.

Hanging the McBush label on McCain, whom all Americans know is a maverick and apart from Bush on a lot of issues, ain't gonna work, folks. Nice try. Face it: Obama is a wet-behind-the-ears, arrogant, smug, Socialist who's gonna get creamed when it comes down to the final day. And God bless Israel! If they attack Iran before the election, Obama's toast!

Speaking of this doofus, over at ABC, Jake Tapper has done some first-rate reporting on the campaign this year; chiefly because he seems to be subjecting all the candidates to real scrutiny. Case in point, Tapper seems to be one of the few people not so mesmerized by his mellifluous baritone he hasn't noticed that Obama's a "one-man gaffe machine."

So Obama's visited "57 states," regularly gets the name of the town he's in wrong, thinks they speak Arabic in Afghanistan and recently has repeatedly contradicted himself trying to explain his position on Hugo Chavez and FARC.

This sort of thing is generally catnip to the media and the fact it's not being reported is pretty compelling evidence there's a brazen double standard here. Remember the absurd foofaraw about how McCain supposedly didn't understand the difference between Sunni and Shia? Yet Obama can say cringe-inducingly ignorant things such as "We only have a certain number of [translators] and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan" and the media buries it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama must be the most gaffe-prone politician in memory. Last month, he delivered a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico. After greeting the local Democratic Party dignitaries, he began:

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

Memorial Day honors those who have died in our nation's military service. Is it possible that Obama does not know this? Sometimes the things that come out of his mouth defy understanding.
What was really offensive about Obama's New Mexico appearance, however, was what followed his very brief, but generally appropriate, tribute to America's war dead. He continued with a town hall-style question and answer period that cast veterans in the only role with which the Democrats are comfortable--victims--and sought to politicize the holiday. A few excerpts:

OBAMA: We're going to have hundreds of thousands of new veterans coming in, many of them who suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. They are not being diagnosed quickly enough, they're not getting the services that they need quickly enough. And, sadly, the group of veterans that are probably being most neglected in this area are women veterans. We've got to do a better job of creating facilities...

(APPLAUSE)

... specifically for women veterans.
And part of what we need is to recognize that oftentimes our women servicemembers are more prone to post-traumatic stress disorder partly because they
-- there's a sad, but real, problem of sexual harassment and sexual abuse for women veterans, and that makes them much more prone, then, to have post-traumatic stress disorder.

***

OBAMA: I want a much more aggressive [Small Business Administration]; one that's reaching out. And I want it particularly to reach out to our veterans.
This whole transition in terms of veterans coming home and establishing themselves economically, there are a bunch of different components to it.
Number one, is what we just talked about which is making sure that the G.I. bill for a 21st century is passed. And although George Bush has threatened to veto it, our intention is to override that veto when it comes back to the House and the Senate...

(APPLAUSE)

***

QUESTION: What would you do with Blackwater?
OBAMA: I am not a believer in private contractors as a mechanism for serving our -- this United States.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, I, in fact, actually currently have legislation that I introduced that would do a full audit on Blackwater.

(APPLAUSE)

And they need to be held accountable for some of the actions that have already been taken.

***

QUESTION: [Y]ou know, we're in a world of real serious crisis in our country, as you know. You know, people are paying up to over $4 a gallon. They're really having to make sacrifices to put food on the table.

Affordable housing for the medium-income people is really an issue. Health care -- there's a lot of people going out without -- going working without health care.

And I wonder if you could just address those issues, and the economy, how you're going to jumpstart it, as president of the United States.
Thank you.

OBAMA: Well, obviously, the problems you just listed affect veterans and nonveterans alike. And part of what this president hasn't understood that I think the American people understand is that part of our security is our economy -- our economic security.

***

Our tax code has to change. It rewards the wealthy and the powerful; it doesn't help you.

So I want to give you a middle-class tax break. If you're a senior citizen -- if you're a senior citizen, I don't want you to have to pay income tax at all if you make $50,000 a year or less, because you're already on fixed incomes...

(APPLAUSE)

... and the way we'll pay for it is to close loopholes; for example, on companies that ship jobs overseas. They shouldn't get a tax break. We should save those tax breaks for companies that invest here in the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

I want us to invest in infrastructure, to put people back to work. We could put 2 million people back to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges, laying broadband lines in rural communities.

And if you think that we can't afford it, just remember we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.


All in all, a shameful performance. President Bush, meanwhile, gave a moving Memorial Day speech--not a partisan stemwinder--at Arlington National Cemetery. The contrast is not, to put it politely, favorable to Obama.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how about Obama at Mt. Rushmore:

He did express curiosity about the filming of a chase scene in "North by Northwest," Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 classic starring Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint that included a death-defying scramble over Rushmore's presidential faces.

"How did they get up there in the first place?" he asked ranger Wesley Jensen.

"They didn't. It was a movie set," Jensen told him.

"Pretty spiffy, isn't it," said the Illinois senator, summing up his overall impressions.

I can only imagine what you mindless numbnuts would be saying in here had Bush said this. You'd all be having orgasms over such comments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama's campaign is slipping away. One is amazed at the poor public relations people surrounding Obama, since his statements and clarifications are slowly losing him the general election.

There are three problems:

First, he can never quite come clean about his past. Obama seems to claim that the problem with Rev. Moss and Trinity is the sudden attention given these men of faith and the difficult spotlight put upon them as a result of the Obama campaign.

But such public attention is NOT a problem for Trinity and Co.—only a problem for Obama. When the crowd rises to its feet to shout approval of a racist like Wright or Pfleger it is not because of sudden public attention, but because they wish to hear such racist scape-goating that apparently serves as some sort of collective catharsis. And Obama apparently, despite his much praised "candor" about race, cannot or will not address why his own congregation and new minister would applaud a nut like Pfleger. (Such an exegesis might really call for a landmark speech about race in a way in which Obama's past politically expedient attempt was not).

Two, Obama situates these scandalous incidents in terms of himself. So Wright is wrong for showing "disrespect" for Obama. Pfleger erred by "disappointing" Obama. But these reprehensible figures are not wayward disciples whose straying hurts the messiah, but rather hard-core calculating politicians who know precisely the cost-benefit ratios of their own rhetoric.

They say what they say because they know of the welcome reaction to come. In contrast, Obama once again turns the venom into something about himself, when in fact the issue is far larger: how did we get to a situation in which self-acclaimed spokesmen for the black community feel they can say outrageous things about whites, women, Italians, genes and IQ and expect none of the censure that would meet any other who voiced such venom.

Third, can't Obama's advisers warn him that he is falling into a disturbing pattern? When a dubious figure of his past courts controversy, he should not, in anger and in hyper-sensitivity, counter with blanket praise (cf. his kind words about Wright and Trinity) and then slowly qualify that until he reaches the 'disowning' phase. By now all of America knows the truth: Wright, Trinity, Moss, Pfleger, et al have never changed one iota. They are intellectually honest and candid in their extremist views; the only one who changed is Obama. So the question always arises-WHY?

Is it because he didn't know the nature of his associates, OR is it because he finds their well-known messages suddenly as politically disadvantageous as he once found them essential in jump-starting his Chicago career?

If the latter, voters will ask: what are the true convictions of their next president? And are his political contortions simply those of all politicians who evolve beyond their base, or reflective of a cynicism that we haven't seen in quite some time? And when Obama attacks a Limbaugh or Dobbs as intolerant for expressing worries about illegal immigration and impugns their character with suggestions of racism, by why moral standard does he offer such condemnation, given his 20-year association with and subsidy of a hate-monger like Wright, and his former legislative assistance to a racist demagogue like Pfleger?

The tragedy about Obama's race speech is that he used up his one occasion to be honest and candid about race, to save his campaign from the Wright fall-out, when he really could have discussed why a Wright finds such standing ovations-and what that says about us all?


Barack Hussein Obama: to the left of George McGovern. Everything must be done to stop this Socialist from becoming president. His presidency would make Carter's look like a success, economic and otherwise.

Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson were socialists.

TRL

Ho hum, must be another slow discouraging day at the RNC. Carry on MIB or whoever you are.....

Polls in June mean nothing since the election is in November. A) its too soon after the Democratic primary ended. B.) McCain and Obama haven't been on stage together yet to have one debate C) There is still so much that can happen between now and November. A scandal, another foot in mouth moment....ANYTHING!!! So while its great that Veritas/MIB or whoever picks the ONE poll right now that has McCain and Obama tied while every other poll has him ahead well past the margin of error....I say ALL of the polls mean squat at this point.

I am hearing all this stuff about how Obama is some kind of extreme socialist. Let's look at his positions.

Not for immediate full withdrawal from Iraq
Not for single-payer health care
Not for full gun control
Not for gay marriage
For tax cuts on lower and middle classes, return tax rates on high earners to 1990s levels
Raise capital gains by only 5 percent. This is far below much of the rest of the world
Not for opening the borders or massively increasing immigration
Wants to renegotiate NAFTA, not scrap it
Supports Israel almost unconditionally
Supports the death penalty
Voted to re-up the Patriot Act
Devout Christian
Opposes drug legalization, even marijuana

There is lots of room to the left of Barack Obama. He's a mainstream Democrat--which, Veritas, may not be your thing. But there's a reason the GOP does not want to contest this election on political issues--the items that make up the above list correlate strongly with the mood of the country. That's why we have all this Reverend Wright crap. I feel sort of sorry for you if you actually believe the stuff in that ridiculous screed, even more so if you enjoyed writing it.

Well, Veritas, lucky for you, it's a slow news day. By the by, how is the condo on the river Da Nile? I'm sure it's a beautiful view. Let's see, where to begin! Oh yes, that baaaad radical Obama. Yes, I am sure he will be baaaad. Just like your hero, GWB. My, look at the home prices, look at the national debt, the cost of a gallon of gas, the cost of a gallon of milk, the stock market having the worst month of June SINCE 1930!!! SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION!! General Motors taking a huge, one-day hit. Yeah, your hero, GWB and his clone puppet Mc Cranky, sure are doing this nation proud. Oh, I forgot to mention a useless war in two countries, neither anywhere near resolve, thousands dead, and a debt stretching from here to the moon. Yeah, Obama sure is a radical. At this point, we NEED a radical like Obama to undo the stink of 8 years of ineptitude. Obama has it cinched. America is fed up and broke. This is the stuff revolutions are made of...expect one in November, and call it Obama.

How about Oregon's Republican Senator Gordon Smith? Has anyone checked out the campaign ad he's running? In both a TV ad and a radio ad, he touts his ties to Obama and mentions that he is proud to be working with Obama. That alone should tell Republicans everything they need to know about how this election is headed for McCain.

Listening to Obama's now old energy mantra recently, I am amazed that it simply remains fossilized and unchanged — unlike his other 'evolving' positions on handguns, FISA, NAFTA, campaign finance reform, town hall debates with McCain, talking to Iran, Jerusalem, etc. (Cue it up, Maestro: "Flip, Flop, I've been taking a bath...".)

The guy's a bleepin' idiot! He's against drilling for more oil ON OUR OWN LAND and IN OUR OWN SEAS. Had we begun doing that in 1995, when Clinton vetoed it, we would have been producing barrel upon barrel of our OWN oil, yet here we are, at over $4 a gallon for gas. Yet Obama pontificates about reducing out dependence on foreign oil. He's against nuclear power, perhaps the safest and most reliable energy available (the environmentalist morons' opinions notwithstanding--who, btw, are responsible for the controversy surrounding disposal, considering they won't let us process the waste like France does).

It is still "wind, solar, biofuels and green energy that will create millions of new jobs." But he must know that neither wind nor solar will do much to power transportation; and should we go to electric, millions of Americans who plug their autos in at night at least for the next few decades would need either more clean coal or nuclear to power them.

He should skip mention of biofuels, since he is for subsidizing inefficient corn ethanol at a time of record-high fuel and corn prices, while supporting tariffs on the importation of more efficient sugar-based biofuels.

In short, by opposing all drilling in Anwar, off the coasts, the continental shelf, and omitting any reference to coal, tar sands, shale, or nuclear, he apparently thinks that millions of acres of new solar panels and hundreds of thousands of wind turbines dotting our mountain crests and deserts, together with millions more acres devoted to corn, will somehow bring gas prices down or make energy more affordable.

But this is absolute lunacy, and no one in the media seems willing to have him explain just how many megawatts, and how many gallons of biofuels he hopes to produce, and how millions of jobs will be created therein and how our energy prices thereby will become affordable.

Smith knows the writing is on the wall for anything Republican this year and he hopes to benefit from Obama in any form possible....I have heard lots about it out here....I don't think he will be the last one to do this either.

Talk show host and "Hardball" fill in Michael Smerconish says there is a strong rumor, that Colin Powell is going to endorse Obama, which would be a HUGE snub to Bush....
He also had a segment talking about Cindy McCain and how much she is worth and how much she/they are spending, and he said, " the next Time the Republicans call Obama an elitest, they may want to rethink that". Amen. Speaking of Cindy I recall back in the campaign of Obama and Hillary when Hillary called Obama that, and Cindy McBush was asked if she thought Obama was an elitest. WHAT a hypocrite.

wow, how is Obama gonna get even more "centrist" than he has in the last 2 weeks? Maybe a faith-based group can execute a child rapist who was caught by FISA surveillance on the convention stage!

CHANGE!

(Colin Powell is a criminal whose endorsement should be shunned.)




That's a good laugh! They were, in fact, our last two liberal presidents.

This is one big reason why I can't vote for him. He is flip-flopping like crazy and taking both sides of every frickin' issue just to win votes, worse than any nominee I can remember. I'm just fed up with these politicians and their spineless expediency.

Note: this is not to be construed as an endorsement of that relic known as John McCain.

Nobody has flip flopped more seriously than John McBush. Lets be real. I for one am not worried about Obama. He is involved in nothing different than what Bill Clinton did knowing what he had to do to win, and thats to appeal to the masses, his base, but also independants and yes even some Republicans. While I can understand some on the far left wing being a little upset, I am not worried that Obama is going to fail his core constituency. I see no difference to what he is doing than what B. Clinton did....and even with some leads in the polls, its probably something that has to be done. WE shall see.....

Your statement would be more credible if it was backed up by facts. Poll after poll has consistently shown McCain doing better than Obama in Independents, who may be the key in this race. McCain has always had a very good reputation among those voters because he has always been perceived as being more independent himself, taking positions that often conflict with members of his own party. This is probably why a lot of conservatives are very cool on him.

As my previous post stated, I sure as hell am not endorsing McCain, but as far as flip-flopping, I'm sorry, but Obama takes the cake this year on that. If changing your stance on just about every position is "what has to be done," then such a person does not deserve to be president, no matter who that person is. Realizing you're wrong about a specific issue and admitting it then altering your view is one thing, but on practically every one? Ridiculous.

Just take a position and stick with it!

This "he has to do it" electability sh*t is a favorite of Democratic apologists. And Bill Clinton was a lousy, spineless, regressive president who governed to the right of Bush Senior.

However, Obama HAS generally held these "new" positions when it came to Senate votes -- he just SPOKE differently in primary season.

Actually, you're wrong, Crew Chief. Poll after poll has consistently shown Obama slightly ahead among independent voters, or at the very least tied. Here is how Fox News reported on the most recent polling of independents. It is a 2-week old ABC News/Washington Post poll, but with a Fox News byline, meaning Fox News staff pick and chose what info they wanted to include in this story. In other words, they are showing the results in the most positive light for McCain.

And even Fox News acknowledges in the story: "A new poll shows John McCain and Barack Obama running even among independent voters, a favorable shift among that group for McCain, but the numbers also reveal a weakness for McCain among that electorate on specific issues. The poll showed the two candidates in a statistical dead heat, with Obama taking a 1 percentage point lead over McCain among independents, 44-43, when asked whom they would vote for today. Obama’s lead was bigger among all adults, 48-42. The margin of error for the poll was 3 percent. While independents tended to lean closer to McCain on more issues than overall adults, Obama generally won their trust on other issues, including the economy, women’s issues, gasoline prices, global warming, taxes, health care, energy and Supreme Court appointments. When it came to a central theme of both campaigns — change in Washington — the bloc gave strong support to Obama: 64 percent of independents said they believed Obama would do more to bring needed change, whereas only 22 percent said so for McCain."

Thanks for your info FSU. So Bill, then your voting for McBush I take it? Or? Or? And I apologize to NO ONE thank you. Barack knows what he has to do, and to implement change, he first has to be elected....

You're fantasizing in the familiar Obamaniac style, Tom. We will still be in Iraq in 2010 no matter who wins.

It's possible I will unenthusiastically vote for Obama, but more likely a minor-party candidate as I have from 1988 on. These elections are shams (and my presidential vote in New York is meaningless, Electoral College-wise).

Its my understanding that there is talk that Obama will make his acceptance speech outside at Bronco Stadium in Denver with oh, about 70,000 of his closest friends. That would be a security nightmare, but the thought gives me goosebumps.