Its official!!! Let the General Election campaign OFFICIALLY BEGIN!!!! Hard fought but its time to put the focus off of the Democratic primaries and the focus on framing John McCain and his policies that will do nothing but be more of the same. Congratulations Barack!! Just an amazing, against all odds victory. I'm shaking as I type this. I just didn't think I'd see this so early in my lifetime.

Yep, he's in. Let the real race begin now. Let's work to keep that snarly, little (dare I say little?) creepy guy from continuing the damage to this country. I DO have the audacity to have hope.
Actually way beyond this country....the world.

OBAMA CLINCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

freaking amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay let's savor the moment for tonight but tomorrow it's time to roll up the sleeves and REALLY get this race running.

What does that mean? Contribute to Obama and down ballot candidates if you can. Small amounts go a long ways when delivered in mass quantity. Don't forget the down ballot candidates.

Volunteer with the local organization. That means block walking, registering voters, putting up signs and helping out anyway you can.

Finally, get familiar with the talking points. Write letters to the editor showing the flaws of McCain's ideas. Show how these are just repeats of the past 8 years of failure. Remember, McCain himself admitted he doesn't understand economics, one of the most critical issues aside from the war.

Let's bring home the White House and the down ballot candidates.

My Mama for Obama!!!!

Barrack is my Rock!


LET'S KICK REPUBLICAN ASSSSSSSSSSSS

I just made my donation to the campaign!!!! Let's just get this done!!!!!

Hillary is still in denial and she's well into her speech. WTF?

Here is the leaked speech of Sen. Obama for the MN rally. It's a great speech that starts to go head to head with McCain. I don't know how much of this will actually be delivered as speeches always change up to the last minute but it gives a feel for what he plans to say.

BTW, that guy behind HRC in the yellow shirt has got to be one of the most animated supporters I've ever seen.

She knows.

She is trying to make sure that her voters and supporters are not just "cut off"- it is brilliant that she is supposedly asking for their opinions- it will make them feel a part of the process of her concession and lead them into supporting Obama for President. She conceded in her own way.

hillbitch still thinks she's more electable.

LMAO

I think her speech was reprehensible. Disgusting. Self-serving for her, not the party.

I'm sorry but that speech was not about unifying the party AT ALL!!! It had a very defiant tone. Some woman kept shouting out at her and then finally said something like "can't vote for Obama" Whatever people...if you think McCain is better than Obama simply because you couldn't have Hillary, you need your brain examined.

Looks like the Drudge Report leaked it right. It's a hum dinger of a speech and one that helps to start the healing and the fight.

I am sorry- and I respect your interpretation of the speech.

But James McCarville on CNN is right- if she just said- I GIVE IN, I LOSE tonight... the people supporting her may have more of a "snap judgment" versus feeling that they are engaged in a transition to vote for Obama. The tone wasn't ideal and perhaps too strong...but she emphasized her platform as a lead in to the same topics that Obama is going over in his speech...

She knows, Terp.... as you have told us that have supported Hillary over Obama.... you have been telling us to have faith in him.... and now I do.

So as difficult as it is- trust that Hillary knows that she has lost and that she is doing her best to bring her voters over to him- have faith in her that she is trying to bring those 18 million to him and to help Obama be our next President....

It's a process Terp. As one of the posters on the Obama blog put it after I pleaded with them to start bringing the HRC supporters over, there are 5 steps you have to go through. I can't remember them all but the final one is acceptance. You don't close the book on 5 months of hard work with "I lost" and expect those that came with you to just jump over and start working.

This will take a couple of days to call supporters and explain her position, speak with volunteers and thank them for putting their lives on hold for her, and close it as gracefully as she could.

Will she be urged to continue? Heck yes. Will she? Nope, she knows where this needs to go and what continuing it could do to her political future. Ted Kennedy, God be with him now, realized this after losing to Jimmy Carter. He went on to become one of the best Democratic senators.

Now it's her time to find her place in our history and move this country forward as a policy leader. I actually think a VP slot would diminish her role. She can do so much more in the Senate if she stays there. I hope she understands that as well.

Who knows? She may eventually find her place on the bench of the Supreme Court. That will have to come with time in service.

Damn, this is a f**king great speech!

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

Let's roll Barack. Take on the Republican institution and bring us back to greatness!

I am glad he changed the word regarding the divsion from "demonize" to "polarize." That was a good catch and good change.

BTW, didn't know if you knew but his personal aide, Reggie Love, used to play basketball at Duke.

Ok yall ok...you make good points. I just think there were a couple of things that could have been left out. But I guess she is validating the incredible work that her supporters gave her, which they should be credited for. It was hard fought. But I'm sure you've heard the expression its not what you say but the way you say it. So...I know this has to be tough for Hillary but...I'm just so sick of how long this process has taken I'm ready to dive right into the general. But you'll are right. It has to be a process and certainly not one that can take place over night. I'm sure that 3 months from now, much of the divisiveness and bitterness will have died down.

NY Times blog is reporting that Lanny Davis (Seth Davis' dad) is starting a petition on his own to get HRC as the VP candidate. He said he started it on his own because if he had asked permission she would have said no. Personally I wish they would give this effort up of getting her on the ticket. VP would diminish her tremendously. If Obama wins two terms she would be possibly too old to launch a successor run after 8 years.

Did Anderson and Donna just have that conversation about boobs? LMFAO!

Just a couple? LOL She could have left a whole lot out... but she is not the speech maker that Obama is- should have loaned her a writer.

You are right- this process has sucked! I am actually feeling a sense of joy in knowing that I would have been proud to select either candidate for President.... now that the process is over and we have Obama in place- it is so much nicer just to know...

So now on to the VP search!

Very good news! Now he has to get out there and win voters over. He can't let up even a single day, nor can the Democratic Party and its supporters. And this includes Senator Clinton and her husband.

Who?

I loved Obama's speech tonight. What a contrast with McCain.

On my way home tonight, I saw an Obama bumper sticker and I always like to check out who's in the car with whatever political stickers I see. Inside the Obama car was a straight white couple that had to be in their 60s at least. That's a great sign.

Hmmm....I didn't know that Terry McCauliffe introduced her tonight as the next President of the United States. Chris Matthews was talking to some political guy and I missed Terry's introduction. Thats not exactly accepting the reality of what happened nor moving toward unity. And Chuck Todd said it best in that she can continue to play political hardball if she wants, but if she drags this thing out and/or does not fully support his candidacy Obama supporters WILL NOT vote for her should she decide to run again in 4 years if Obama loses. If she is seen as someone to blame, whether true or not if he loses in November, Obama supporters will not forget it. It was said that if John Kerry had a slight more African American support in Ohio in 2004, he would've won it. Of course the Bush chronies made boys kissing a big issue and infiltrated black churches scaring up the gay issues and values and enough of them voting against Kerry because of that issue. It was a close election. Obama did not run away with the nomination and actually goes in limping a bit because she's done quite well since the primaries in Ohio and Texas. He did not win by that much and he shouldn't have expected to. He was not the brand name. She was. But in the end, he got it. But, it was essentially over by then. So while I understand its a "process" she needs to watch it if she has ANY chance to try this again in 4 years. I know people will say that 4 years from now people will forget. I don't know. This election has changed the dynamic of politics.

So now that its over, we've got to get to unity because Obama does have problems to face in terms of attracting Hillary supporters, just as Hillary would have similar problems should she have found a way to get the nomination at the end. The woman though does have political power and the pundits are saying she's making a power play. So again, she's got clout she can use, but she better do it wisely.

Hubby and I watched Barak Obama's speech last night, and all I can say is that the effect was electric. There is no one more cynical, or "who gives a damn" about American politics than hubby, but when the speech was over last night, even he had tears in his eyes.

As a non-American, I tend to have a different viewpoint on things, (quelle surprise), but I will say this. Both my husband and I are old enough to remember the effect that John and Robert Kennedy had when they spoke, and Barak's speech last night was of that calibre.

He has a long road ahead of him, but he was right in his speech. Now is his time!

Perhaps it's because I'm 7,000 miles away in Iraq and simply don't have time to spend hours watching US news coverage...but could someone explain to me in cogent terms what, exactly, that means. It's simply an honest question.

Pennstate, I will try. Based on my following of Obama and what he stands for, at least some of his idea of change in my view is to take away the power that special interest groups and lobbyists have in Washington D.C. He knows that the lobbyists have way to much power and force alot of the agenda in D.C. Another idea that he has, is to try to take away the bitterness and division that has long been the trademark of the two big parties, and to work for more that we can agree on, versus emphasizing what divides us. Those are two big areas he has talked about over and over. If you want more, visit his website. here.

The world reacts...

LONDON (AP) — Excitement about Barack Obama emerged as a global phenomenon Wednesday as commentators and citizens around the world welcomed the news that he had sealed the Democratic presidential nomination.

The excitement was less about Obama's foreign policies — which remain vague on many fronts — than a sense that the candidacy of a black American with relatives in Africa and childhood friends in Asia marks a historic moment.

Michael Cox, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, said Obama's win "has sent out a lot of positive signals around the world."

"He has a very appealing persona — elegant, fluent, strings lots of sentences together into paragraphs," Cox said. "But in terms of (his) actual policies towards the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, China, Europe — actually, we don't know."

In Kenya, home to Obama's family on his father's side, the Kenya Times newspaper devoted its front page to Obama's victory, under the headline "Obama makes history."

"I've just watched him on television, and as a family we are very happy. Really, it is something that is a trendsetter," the politician's uncle, Said Obama, told The Associated Press from the port city of Kisumu in western Kenya.

Indonesians were rooting for the man they consider to be a hometown hero. Obama lived in the predominantly Muslim nation from age 6 to 10 with his mother and Indonesian stepfather and was fondly remembered by former teachers and classmates.

"He was an average student, but very active," said Widianto Hendro Cahyono, 48, who was in the same third-grade class as Obama at SDN Menteng elementary school in Jakarta. "He would play ball during recess until he was dripping with sweat.

"I never imagined he would become a great man."

In Mexico City, hairdresser Susan Mendoza's eyes lit up when she learned Obama had clinched the nomination.

"Bush was for the elite. Obama is of the people," she said.

The German government's coordinator on U.S. relations, Karsten Voigt, said many Germans "find (Obama's) mixture of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy very attractive."

In an editorial, the Times newspaper of London said Obama's campaign "has rekindled America's faith in its prodigious powers of reinvention — and the world's admiration for America."

Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq and has called for an early troop withdrawal. He also has shown willingness to engage in dialogue with Iran, North Korea and Cuba — nations long isolated by the policies of Bush.

"He seems to be a peace lover," said Ngo Van Hung, a Vietnamese real-estate salesman. "He would have a better understanding of how to treat people of different nationalities and different countries."

A Chinese scholar said that while he did not expect major changes in U.S. foreign policy, an Obama White House would have a very different tone to a Bush one.

"He will bring new energy into America's domestic politics and foreign policies," said Zhu Feng, deputy director at the Center of International and Strategic Studies at Peking University in Beijing. "It's a good choice for the Democrats."

Obama, however, has made himself unpopular in Pakistan by saying the United States should act alone on information about terrorist targets within the country's national borders, leading some to believe he will not be any different from Bush.

"Obama has threatened attacks against us even before becoming the president, and he will be more dangerous compared to Bush," said Ibrar Ahmad, 34, a lecturer at the Government College in Multan.

It means as much as "Morning in America," or "Stay the Course," or any other good political slogan--whatever the observer wants it to say. IMO, at the core, it stood for No More Bush, especially as it relates to Iraq and Obama's standing as the only major candidate to oppose the war from the start. That was enough for primary voters but it probably won't be enough for the general election. Enter Barack Obama, policy wonk. Should be interesting to see how good a job he does in that incarnation. We will be hearing a lot about police interrogation in Illinois.


Parsing it a little more...

"Change"=moving past Bush. Rorschach test for any kind of desirable policy changes. Every politician promises that things will be different and better.
"We can believe in"=Lots of stuff. Religious connotations, an implication that Obama is trustworthy, communitarian ethos and a united populace, general hope for the future.


BTW, it's interesting that John McCain's new tagline is "A Leader We Can Believe In." No comment.

Hopefully this image will be repeated over and over until November and be plastered everywhere... billboards, TV ads, everywhere! God it's scary.

I am scared of that!!!!!

As was stated above. This is just a bumper sticker that has been repeated over and over again. Basically put across with his speech speaking abilities.

Most of the change issues are HIGHLY liberal issues which have no chance of passing, they are merely "Not Bush" Which should really be the slogan.

Getting special interests out of Washington means that you actually vote against your party and some of your supports when you have to. Is that Obama's voting record? That is yet to even be touched in the general election.

Honestly, this election comes down to the Indep Voters and Hillary supports which are just not voting for Obama as can be seen by his stumbling across the finish line in key swing states.

My personal feeling is that this election comes down to actually debating the issues and not reading/speaking off of a telepromter.

The most i've heard from Obama is that he wants out of Iraq. I'm yet to hear how/when/where and what his plans are if something goes wrong. Does he go back in? Does he let them just fend for themselves? Does he allow Iran to have more influence? If his answer is to go back in, it's going to be a problem.

I want him to elaborate on why raising taxes in a slugging economy is a good thing. Why higher taxes on anyone who invests in the market is a good thing.

How he intends to have universal healthcare and how he can actually pass this while still "crossing party lines".

How his change message and reaching across the isle is actually going to happen. You can not be the candidate of change when you strictly vote democratic.

These things move to actual plans and not just pandering to your base. Without the Hillary/Indep vote he has no chance to win and he's actually very weak to the general public , especially when you consider how low the republican brand is right now. He's tied right now in the polls and just about failing in states like OH, MI, FL, WV etc. The states he needs to win. I would expect a bump right now after this election is over, so the true test of his staying ability is going to be a month from now.

Sorry, not trying to put down the Obama supports but just stating facts about what the rest of the people outside of his base think about him.

The real John McCain:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

I haven't followed the evolution of the slogan "Change we can believe in" but assume that it first evolved to distinguish Obama from the other Democratic candidates for the nomination, and incidentally was adequate as a slogan to be continued against the Republicans.

When he first started using the "change" slogans, everyone started jumping on the bandwagon, even Republicans. So he had to amplify without exceeding the attention span of the internet generation.

As far as real change we may see the limits of that in his recent commitments to AIPAC to insure that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and that Israel will remain a Jewish state.

Considering the semi-nice words that Hamas had to say about Obama recently it is not surprising that he had to make, or re-emphasize, these commitments. But they may ensure that he doesn't have a starting point for talks with Hamas, just like the Bush administration.

Charm will not work in the Middle East, either for Hamas or Israel. Carter has been pilloried by many supporters of Israel for overtures to Hamas. It is difficult to see how Obama can do any more.

And his intention to start working toward a Palestinian state at the beginning of his administration - if elected - instead of at the end (as he claims Bush has done) will not be any easier with these 'pre-conditions'.

PennState4Ever, that's a valid question and one everyone voting in this election should ask and understand. What it means to me is that Sen. Obama is about putting change to work instead of talking about it. His campaign encouraged community action groups to focus on problems in the community even while they were in the midst of a campaign. He created the Fellow program similar to a Peace Corps type of position to allow people to be able to receive assistance while helping in their community or in the public sector. There are several initiatives that he has started during the campaign.

In other words, enough of the rhetoric. Let's put change to work now.

I know it sounds mushy but his campaign has been the most active and organized of any I've ever seen. His speech tonight was very inspiring. Of all the three candidates he hit the out of the park homer while the other two were good to get a single.

The key over the next 5 months will be to get to know him better and help drive home a solid presidency.

JohnnyMac, so then your voting for McBush or???????Just wondering....your opinions and your entitled to them, but I guess it comes down to if you like the direction the country has been heading with our lovely $9 trillion dollars worth of debt, endless war, failing infrastructure, health care fiasco, and on and on and on, and you can't figure out Obama, well by all means then, please support McBush. No one here is saying Obama is a saint, but he is offering a different direction than where this country has been, and I for one, and many others it appears, am buying into it. WE have got about 5 months now till the general election, I would encourage you to listen to what the two candidates are saying, and do your homework and go online and check out their respective websites to get answers...We can't stay on the same course for 4 more years. And we cannot afford a hundred years in Iraq either....

Hockeytom,

I consider myself independent and have not truly made up my mind of who to vote for. Since my vote will decide the election, I was just providing some observations.

Without going into detail from some of what you wrote ( I could elaborate if you wish) If you support Obama’s positions on where he wishes to spend money, there is no way this country will have a balanced budget. If anything I see it just ballooning or more taxes on all of us.

Ending the stalemate in Washington has to come from someone who crosses party lines and works with the other party to get things done. Exactly what has he done to prove he is the person to accomplish that? The latest polling shows that people do not approve of Bush, but they approve of this democratic congress even less. At what point since they have taken over has Obama taken leadership and lead change that reached across party lines?

When I compare and contrast the two candidates, there is only one who sticks out as having actually worked with the other party, and has even failed miserably (immigration) while trying to accomplish change across the lines.

As I see things, one of these candidates speaks well with a teleprompter and the other is better at just talking about the issues and does not have the flash of public speaking. Which is why I am waiting for debates to even remotely come to a decision.

A few things I want to see from them. Concrete plans of how you get out or why you stay in Iraq. Economic plans where you actually do something to strengthen the dollar and cut spending. Rather than pandering more government spending to gain votes.

An actual energy plan that makes sense NOW and 20 years down the road.

I want McCain to tell me why I should vote for him considering his age and how his is different from Bush. I want Obama to tell me why I should vote for him as leader of the country when he has changed his position on his church 5 times now and showed zero leadership up until someone pointed how racist his spiritual mentor is. We have zero background with him on any type of national leadership position these are only fair questions to ask of him to judge his leadership.

Election 2008-Interactive Electoral College Map

This is neat. I've been plugging in and taking out to see how the map could change this year because of Obama's candidacy. Hopefully the damn thing doesn't get more red!!

JohnnyMac, what type of Supreme Court nominees do want to see with the chance that three currently sitting liberal justices will probably retire under the next President? Are you concerned about gay rights/marriage, a woman's choice or other issues such as our right to privacy? These are longterm issues that will have decades long consequences in our lives. Obama is my choice hands down for this reason alone.

Why is it whenever anyone asks a question about Obama, it seems as if they are jumped upon and compared to a Bush supporter? There are going to be a LOT of questions asked of this man. Telling someone to visit his website is just not going to cut it. Is that the plan of action against McCain? If so, you better get used to hearing the phrase "President McCain".

Millerbeach makes a good point, so I'm not going to call names, but try to address some of the questions JohnnyMac broaches.


This is good to hear.



The country has not had a balanced budget under 8 years of Republican White House rule. It took Bill Clinton an entire term to get on us on the road to a balanced budget and a surplus. So Obama is not going to achieve a balanced budget in a year, especially not during a recession, which we are in, don't forget, though as Bill Clinton showed, when he 1) raised taxes on the rich, which will have to happen, and 2) pushed a range of policies to cut the deficit despite facing a hostile Congress, it is possible to rectify the damage left by Republican administrations. I imagine, based on the economists (Goolsbee, Cutler, etc.) that Obama is surrounding himself with at this point that he will have a very strong economic team, and they will assess which of his plans are feasible, which will have to be held back until the economy improves, and then proceed from there. As things are going, we are facing a real crisis, because billions of dollars worth of subprime mortgages are set to fail later this year since they cannot be easily renegotiated, the inflationary pressures we face mean that we cannot keep lowering interest rates, and toll that the falling dollar and oil prices, which are linked, are having on the economy, means that the next president, Republican or Democrat, will face a tremendous hole. I personally trust Obama more to deal with this because he strikes me as more flexible and the Republican economic strategies McCain is embracing have failed, but either he or McCain will face a serious crisis left by this president and his administration.



Voters have a low opinion of the Democratic Congress, yet all polls show they are set to increase their majorities in both houses, so whichever candidate wins will have an empowered Democratic caucus in both houses (with potentially more conservative and liberal Democrats). This alone will address the stalemate; when Bush (barely) took office, he had a Republican majority, and as we saw, he ran with it. The stalemate came when the Democrats briefly got control of the Senate and checked some of his rampant madness, though they obviously were incapable of doing much, since the Rove machine quickly seized back control. IN truth, despite a narrow loss in 2000 and a narrow win in 2004, Bush pretty much got everything he wanted, except the destruction of Social Security (thank God!). And you see where this has left us.

If McCain truly is going to work across the aisle, he probably should stop parroting hard right-wing talking points. It's hard to know what he believes, because until the late 1990s he was a consistent conservative Republican, then he shifted in 1999-2000, then has again begun spouting hard-right talking points. So what does he believe? It's hard to know. He has a 95% right-wing voting record in the Congress. He has worked with Democrats, but then Obama in his short time in the US Senate has co-authored legislation with several conservative Republicans (Tom Coburn, one of the most ultraconservative; Dick Lugar, etc.). Apropos of Hillary Clinton, I once asked, with all sincerity, what her accomplishments in the Senate were, given that she held a very safe seat (New York State) and arrived with considerable star power. No one could answer. On the most important issue facing the nation, the Iraq War, McCain has repeatedly shown bad judgment.


Both have worked across party lines, though McCain has also worked to enable some of the worst Republican excesses of the past 8 years. Does that not count for anything? And in the case of immigration, let's not forget that that was one of Bush's "signature" issues. It failed because of McCain's and Bush's party. Obama, as I recall, was working with McCain, the president, and Democrats to ensure that the immigration bill passed.

You keep saying these things, but I'd respectfully respond that they're coming off like Republican talking points. In fact, this is something that Rush Limbaugh was saying repeatedly. I'm not saying that's where you're getting it from, but really, so what if Obama reads off a teleprompter well? So did Ronald Reagan. McCain, however, utters a gaffe almost every single day. He blatantly lied about his own voting record just the other day when a New Orleans reporter asked him why he had twice voted against Congressional inquiries into the post-Hurricane Katrina failures. He has repeatedly misspoken on Iraq and the issues there. You say he speaks about the issues, but what is he saying? That's the issue.

He doesn't have a sound economic plan for anything, he doesn't have a sound plan for Iraq beyond staying there indefinitely, which is not what the vast majority of Americans want (or the military, for that matter), he doesn't seem to grasp that making threats against a rich and empowered Russia and China are not going to help the US in any way, form or fashion. IF this is speaking on the issues, I mean, we are really going to be in trouble. I would like Obama to be more specific, and I expect that he will be. But from what I have heard from McCain, he is hewing close to Bush and conservative Republican positions, and they have proved disastrous, as policies, and, since 2006, as politics. As a governing ideology, right-wing Republicanism does not work. Not even Ronald Reagan was as orthodox as Bush (he withdrew troops from a war zone, he raised taxes twice, etc.), so if McCain really believes the stuff he's saying these days, we can expect real problems if he's elected.



I agree with you, and I hope we see concrete plans of how to get out of Iraq. Quickly. I also agree with the economic wishes, though it seems that Obama's longterm strategy, of investing in infrastructure development, may not have immediate payoffs, but in the longrun will make the US more competitive for generations. How to convey that to people will be a challenge. In terms of the complexities of the economic situation, it may not be feasible to cut spending right away, because a Keynesian approach, with some limits, may boost the economy and get people back to work rather than a deficit-cutting approach that brings the economy to a standstill. It is clear that if we are not blowing billions of dollars in Iraq on a monthly basis and borrowing from the United Arab Emirates, China, Saudi Arabia, etc. to pay these bills, and if we did not have the massive tax cuts, which haven't worked out so well for the vast majority of Americans, we might be able to address the pressing problems of this country. One of the most important will be tackling the energy crises we face. McCain's statements on this account are not convincing; Obama's are not detailed enough. Yet.

I agree with this completely.


I personally could care less about McCain's or Obama's churches. McCain was an Episcopalian and left his church to become a Baptist. I don't care. He actively sought out the endorsement of a crazy person who claimed that Hitler was sent to kill Jews as part of God's plan, and that the Antichrist will be gay and Jewish. Why on earth would a sane person *seek out the endorsement* of a nut like this? His other minister friend, Rod Parsley, has made inflammatory comments about Muslims. On top of which, McCain's chief advisor Charlie Black also has been involved with Reverend Moon, one of the most bizarre characters on this earth. But then so have a number of prominent Republicans and some Democrats. Obama belonged to Trinity, and its emphasis on social justice helped in part to shape some of his ideas about addressing the most vulnerable among us, so something good came out of it. As for his pastor, this same man counseled President Clinton when he went through his scandal years ago, so obviously more than just Obama found value in his spiritual gifts.

In terms of national leadership positions, what do we have on McCain? Has he been a leader in the US Senate? I'll give him a mulligan on his various scandals over the years, many involving lobbyists and finances--and the scandals swirling around the lobbyists who constitute his campaign advisors--and I'll say that on one issue, on which he's currently in serious trouble, he was a leader: campaign finance reform. But his leadership on Iraq, on the economy, on torture (where he opposed what Bush was doing and then caved in), on the illegal spying on Americans (which he opposed but then yesterday said he thought was fine!), on the unitary-executive BS, on the illegal outing of a CIA agent, on the possible attacks on Iran, etc., are sorely lacking. It is not enough to be in Washington for decades; if that were what counted, we could just elect Robert Byrd from the Democratic Party or Ted Stevens from the Republicans.

I'm not saying Obama is perfect, or even that if elected he would be a great president. But I will say that in his various careers in his short (46 years) life, he has distinguished himself, and it hasn't been through charm and smoke and mirrors. He may turn out to be a Jimmy Carter, or a John F. Kennedy, or a Calvin Coolidge, or an Abraham Lincoln. All would be preferable, however, to a continuation of the politics and policies of a George W. Bush.

As usual Fan excellent reply, totally thorough and completely in depth....you say things so well....

In some cases we're telling you to read for yourself since you want something other than the sound bite version of the issues. So here's some information from Sen. Obama on what he plans to do if elected president. Yes it's 64 pages but if you have a LOT of questions hopefully you'll find a LOT of answers there. It's more than flowing campaign rhetoric. There are real and pointed plans for how to do what he wants to do.

In the interest of balanced views I found nothing of this level of detail at Sen. McCain's website but here's as much as he'll provide. I guess you have to sound bite this stuff for Republicans (sorry, couldn't let that go without a zinger).

So, read, digest and enjoy. This year's election should be about getting informed and making the right decision. That's probably my biggest issue with the HRC supporters who keep saying they will vote for McCain instead of Obama. If positions of Obama and Clinton were only slightly different yet the positions of Obama and McCain are radically different, what were the HRC supporters voting for - the purpose or the person? Apparently it was the later which is pretty shallow in my mind.

Fantoms,

Thanks for your resonse.

I just wanted to back up a little bit My intention was to bring a middle of the road opinion rather than a preaching to the choir opinion.

The landscape of politics is very anti-republican right now. Yet, this race is a statistical tie. Why is that? The Republican brand is very poor at this moment and the democratic ideas are seen as fresh and new. So why is Obama doing so poorly in that landscape? This election is a toss up because the states in play are some of the ones where Obama has huge problems with the voters wanting to vote for him. I think everyone can concede this point.

He is just not geting the support from middle america. He is either going to gain support from the Hillary voters and have the indep. voters come to him or not. I think this is a combination of Race, the "elite" label, his church, his "bitter" comments, and some of his very liberal positions.

Perhaps you can elaborate on some of the bills he introduced that were reaching across party lines. McCain does have a long line of bills in which he crossed party lines and made everyone mad (both sides). I also remember him leading the gang of 14 and going against his party. He even created a failure of a bill which almost lead to the demise of his run at president. The issues he's compromised on have been fairly strong issues with heated debates coming from both parties. Agree/disagree with the outcome, they did work together.

Obama/McCain are going to vote with their party most of the time, the key is when they depart. I have 20 plus years of seeing McCain break this when he feels he needs to. When has Obama gone against his party while he's been in the Senate?

I will go into more economics later, but this is where i see the vote right now. McCain has the moderate republican vote and a so-so vote coming from the extreme conservatives of the party. Obama has the young up and comers, blacks and the extreme liberal portions of the democratic party.

That leaves the Moderate Democrats, Hispanics, and Indep voters at play in the general election.

That is why I believe that the debates are the entire key to this race where they elaborate on their positions and are not left hearing tag lines or websites to look at. To be the true candidate of change, one of them is going to have to leave their party lines and make a few people mad along the way.

Just to make one quick example. Universal Healthcare if a pie in the sky, very liberal, ideal. I want both of them to tell me what part of any plan they have they are willing to concede and what part they are not.

Middle america is also fairly sick of the debate on Iraq being should/should not have gone in. I want to hear what your plans are with the current situation. This war is not that popular but if there is a chance to win, most people will vote to stay. McCain needs to tell me why his surge will work in the long term and at what point he will get out. Obama has to tell me why leaving is the best course of action that will not completely turn that country into chaos and have to go back in a few years down the road.

Energy and taxes will take much more space to explain. I am glad to see that others recognize the falling dollar is the problem, the debate is going to be how you get there.

I hope that does not cause too many problems, just trying to point out the shortfalls many people are just brushing off but seem to be real problems to the rest of us.

I was reading where some right-wing radio nutjobs were urging their listeners around the time of the Pennsylvania primary to go to various left-leaning web sites and infiltrate their message boards. It was apparently suggested that they go to gay-oriented, union-oriented, artist-oriented, black-oriented or other types of web sites because "that's where the liberals are." Their mission? Antagonize the lefties but pretend you're one of them, and get a lot of false information out there about Obama.

A quick check of our new-found Outsports friend JohnnyMac shows that he not only shares the same name as the Republican nominee, but oddly registered for this web site the day following the Pennsylvania primary. Coincidence?

Excellent points fantomas, as usual. I will disagree slightly on one point. I think McCain has articulated "clear" goals in Iraq. Unfortunately the goals may be unachievable. He wants a "prosperous" and "democratic" Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors and is a defense against Al Queda and other terrorists.

The problem is that prosperous is in the eye of the beholder. Does it look like Saudi Arabia, western Europe or Jordan? We could be there forever.

Democracy in Iraq may always be an iffy thing. The minute we leave it could collapse. Solution: never leave.

And Al Queda: can this be repeated enough for the dunderheads to understand? Al Queda was not in Iraq before we entered. No one there particularly wanted or wants them. They will always try to be there as long as we are there because Iraq is a place they can keep busy fighting us and recruiting elsewhere.

Yes McCain is very "clear". We could be in Iraq, not just a hundred years, but indefinitely.

I would classify my position as more of a pro-hillary, why should I vote for Obama in the general election stance. I really liked the way she molded her campaign when it did not matter and the race was lost.

Interesting. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. But 7 posts all in the Politics section in a gay sports oriented website where just the college football season racks up a good 20-30 posts for any one of the rest of us on a normal year? Methinks something is not right here.

So join us in some good banter about the NBA Finals JohnnyMac or, better yet, tell us what you think about the Outgames/Gay Games controversy.

Maybe he is a kinder/gentler Veritas.....u think???!!!

I can't get the quotes to work, so.... (Also, I think JohnnyMac is genuine, not Veritas or anyone else. I know I may not convince him or anyone else, but I do respect the conversation. If we do not talk to each other, we'll get nowhere, and we'll end up with more George W. Bushes, if the country lasts that long.)

The landscape of politics is very anti-republican right now. Yet, this race is a statistical tie. Why is that? The Republican brand is very poor at this moment and the democratic ideas are seen as fresh and new. So why is Obama doing so poorly in that landscape? This election is a toss up because the states in play are some of the ones where Obama has huge problems with the voters wanting to vote for him. I think everyone can concede this point.

Well, you make a good point here. But keep in mind that if you're saying you view McCain as working "across the aisle," then in effect you're saying that you don't identify him as linked as closely with the right-wing mainstream of his party. In truth, he has a very conservative voting record; I'm not making this up, it's there for anyone to see. The media harps on his "maverick" status, but he has been reliably consistent in voting for conservative issues, with the main shift occurring around the period he ran for president the first time, in 2000.

Obama isn't doing poorly; he leads McCain by 6 points in the most recent national poll I've seen. At the same time, let's not forget that Al Gore was the Vice President during a period of incredible prosperity, and had a strong record in his work on streamlining government. He advocated policies that polls showed a majority of Americans favored. And yet he barely defeated George W. Bush, a man whose real plans, as we've seen, were disastrous. So part of Obama's problems do lie with the issues you outline, and part of them lie with an ongoing problem Democratic presidential candidates face (the same was true of Bill Clinton) in making their policies and plans clear to the American people. Hillary Clinton, remember, is also statistically tied with McCain, or was until recently.

He is just not geting the support from middle america. He is either going to gain support from the Hillary voters and have the indep. voters come to him or not. I think this is a combination of Race, the "elite" label, his church, his "bitter" comments, and some of his very liberal positions.

This is not true in all cases. Obama received support from "middle america" when he won the primaries in Wisconsin, in Iowa, in Oregon, in Washington, and Colorado, to name five states. All of these states have small African-American populations. Do these states not count? He nearly tied Hillary in Indiana, a very conservative middle American state. I agree that he has had some serious problems in places like Pennsylvania, in Kentucky and West Virginia, but he is getting support from *many* middle americans, which in itself is a vague term. I think he will gain considerable support from most of Hillary's voters, but not all of them. And many independents will vote for him, though he's got to make sure he gets more than McCain, especially in swing states (right now, a poll shows him by a hair in Missouri, for example). He also will get a smattering of Republican votes, which could be crucial in some of the western states.

Where did that "elite" label come from? That's something I ask of you and others. This man was raised by a single (white) mother and two (white) midwestern (from Kansas no less) grandparents, one of whom fought in the Second World War. He won a scholarship to Columbia University, and was so smart he became the first black person elected to Harvard's very competitive Law Review. This came from smarts, not a silver spoon. Until he wrote his books he did not have a lot of money. He was a community organizer and a lecturer at a college (they make very little money). His wife is a from a working-class background. He now faces a man who is the son and grandson of admirals, and who's married to a wealthy socialite worth hundreds of millions of dollars, a woman who has a history of drug addiction but served no time because, well, rich people get off on these things, poor people don't. Obama doesn't have multiple homes, or a jet to fly around in. How is he an elitist? I mean, isn't this current president, with his contempt for working-class Americans, his descent from prominent bluebloods, etc., the true elitist? Aren't people who want corporate welfare and corporate bailouts but think regular people should suffer "elitists"? Aren't people who say they want wars but refused to fight themselves and don't have their children fighting in those wars "elitists"? Why do we let such tags stick? Who makes them? Of course Obama has to address this, but why don't we question this crap more?

Perhaps you can elaborate on some of the bills he introduced that were reaching across party lines. McCain does have a long line of bills in which he crossed party lines and made everyone mad (both sides). I also remember him leading the gang of 14 and going against his party. He even created a failure of a bill which almost lead to the demise of his run at president. The issues he's compromised on have been fairly strong issues with heated debates coming from both parties. Agree/disagree with the outcome, they did work together.

I've done this on another thread, but here's a Washington Post article that will give you some background. As I said, he has partnered with Republican Senators Tom Coburn and Dick Lugar, both strong conservatives (Coburn is ultraconservative) on legislation that has passed. He and Coburn are again working on a new "good government" bill that John McCain has belated signed on to.

Here's gay conservative Andrew Sullivan's post on Obama's legislative record.

Obama/McCain are going to vote with their party most of the time, the key is when they depart. I have 20 plus years of seeing McCain break this when he feels he needs to. When has Obama gone against his party while he's been in the Senate?

I guess I disagree. The key is what they *do* vote on. Not just breaking away or departing, but what do they vote for and what do they stand for? Doesn't it matter that McCain supported and supports the disaster in Iraq? That he voted for the Torture bill despite claiming he was against it (and he suffered horrific torture as a serviceperson in Vietnam)? That he voted to confirm the two very right-wing judges to the Supreme Court? That he voted for the bankruptcy bill? That he twice voted with the GOP against allowing Congressional oversight into the horrible Katrina disaster and then lied about it on air? That he claims he supports the Everglades restoration, but then the reporter asking him about it pointed out that he'd voted WITH the GOP against funding the restoration? Just flipflopping and voting with your party on terrible legislation and letting Bush off the hook on the one hand, but then have some bipartisan legislation floated and not passed on the other doesn't impress me. McCain-Feingold was a great idea and law. But McCain is flouting it in this election! Again, the specifics are what matter, not just the impression.

I will go into more economics later, but this is where i see the vote right now. McCain has the moderate republican vote and a so-so vote coming from the extreme conservatives of the party. Obama has the young up and comers, blacks and the extreme liberal portions of the democratic party.

I'd agree, though "extreme liberals" are probably going to vote for Cynthia McKinney, who's running on the Green ticket. Keep in mind that many "extreme liberals" do not think Barack Obama is that "liberal" or "progressive." Many look at the specifics and not just at what TV people and the RNC say and they see another Democrat who's more centrist than liberal. Very liberal NY Times commentator and award-winning economist Paul Krugman has repeatedly claimed that Obama's plans are to the *right* of the Clinton's, and the Democrats. So how liberal is he, or is this just another empty tag that people keep throwing out and buying without examining it. He's not so liberal he supports gay marriage, though he does support civil unions, but he's not so conservative that, like McCain, he thinks a California (or Arizona) law banning gay marriage is a bad idea. Are you gay? How do you feel about McCain's anti-gay positions? Or do they not matter?

That leaves the Moderate Democrats, Hispanics, and Indep voters at play in the general election.

I'm not so sure; many "moderate Republicans" are sick of the Iraq War and are going to vote for Obama, for Ron Paul, or for Bob Barr. Or they won't vote. And many extreme right-wingers don't trust McCain, and may sit out the vote as well. I mean, Huckabee was still getting votes long after McCain had clinched. Also, Latino voters in some states--California, for example; New York; New Jersey; New Mexico; Colorado--are already moving into the Obama column. Obama now leads McCain and Clinton among Latinos in California. Of course he has to in order to win that state, but he has a sizable lead right now. Independent voters will be the ones both he and McCain are really fighting over.

That is why I believe that the debates are the entire key to this race where they elaborate on their positions and are not left hearing tag lines or websites to look at. To be the true candidate of change, one of them is going to have to leave their party lines and make a few people mad along the way.

I agree about the debates. On the issue of the politics of change, I would respectfully disagree and suggest that you break out two different ideas: policies and politics.

"True...change" in terms of policies means getting the country back on track and far, far away from the reckless mess of Bush's right-wing neo-conservatism, which never had overwhelming popular support, except right after 9/11, and that was for getting Al Qaeda, not for all the crap he wrapped up into it. If support was so great for attacking Iraq, then why did he lie to get us into it? Why not just state clearly what it was about, as his father did in 1991, and then go in?

Just to make one quick example. Universal Healthcare if a pie in the sky, very liberal, ideal. I want both of them to tell me what part of any plan they have they are willing to concede and what part they are not.

McCain's plan is to stay with things as they are. So the issue is Obama's plan. He's repeatedly stated what it consists of and how it differs from Hillary's plan. I personally like her plan more, because its comprehensiveness and economies of scale will mean greater savings. You say it's "pie in the sky," but the fact is: if US companies did not have to underwrite health care and if we had a comprehensive cradle-to-grave universal preventive and comprehensive treatment plan, we could drive health care costs down, making US companies that much more competitive; prevent many of the long-term and chronic illness problems that plague the US; insure everyone without the current middlemen, who drive up costs; and probably ensure the best health care system on this planet. So that may be liberal, but it will benefit the US, especially US corporations, small, mediu, and large, in the long run.

"True...change" in terms of politics does mean working across the aisle when necessary, but if your party has the better ideas, going with them. Squaring the circle when it's unnecessary is ridiculous. Just think what would have happened if Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson had not pushed strongly for Democratic ideas and legislation instead of some weak compromise during the Depression or the 1964-1966 eras respectively. One might say the same of some of Reagan's policies (though I disagree with his politics in general).

Middle america is also fairly sick of the debate on Iraq being should/should not have gone in. I want to hear what your plans are with the current situation. This war is not that popular but if there is a chance to win, most people will vote to stay. McCain needs to tell me why his surge will work in the long term and at what point he will get out. Obama has to tell me why leaving is the best course of action that will not completely turn that country into chaos and have to go back in a few years down the road.

Again, respectfully, how do you speak for "middle America"? I understand that you are tired of hearing about whether the Iraq war should have occurred, but ask yourself, isn't a better idea to understand how a terrible war that was launched through lies and deception got started, a war that has cost the lives of over 4,000 American servicepeople and thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of billions of dollars? Don't you want to be sure that we don't go down this same road AGAIN? You can't do that if you don't have some sense of why and how it happened. Maybe you're tired of hearing about the "debate," but really, we have never heard why this president and the Congress totally ignored every war critic both within the administration and outside and rushed us into a disaster that is still going on. We need to get the hell out of there. Two Iraqi parliament members brought a letter to Congress from Iraq's Parliament stating THEY WANT US OUT OF THERE. If the war is going so well, that is more reason for us to get out of there.

Energy and taxes will take much more space to explain. I am glad to see that others recognize the falling dollar is the problem, the debate is going to be how you get there.

The falling dollar is only part of the problem, and is much a symptom as a cause. How are the candidates going to address the failing banking sector, the collapsed housing sector, and the contracting economy? What sorts of policies are they going to implement to address the fact that oil companies continue to make record profits and yet still receive subsidies from our government? Are they going to address the fact that we continue to borrow from countries like China, Dubai and Saudi Arabia to pay our bills? I would love to hear your specifics, because these are all important issues that need to be addressed. The almost binge-like borrowing under Republicans and the gutting of regulations, especially in the housing sector, has been disastrous. Do you think we should stop the borrowing and spending beyond our national means, and also do you think we should impose sound regulations to prevent the kinds of shenanigans that have led to the new spate of bank failures, the collapse of Bear Stearns, and so on?

I hope that does not cause too many problems, just trying to point out the shortfalls many people are just brushing off but seem to be real problems to the rest of us.

Again, I agree. We are all "the rest of us," though. We are all, I hope, voting for something far better than we have had to live through these last 8 years. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but I can tell you, I was better off in 2000, financially at least, than I was in 1992. For nearly everyone I know, the same is not true in 2008 vs. 2000, and a great deal of that can be laid at the doorstep of this Republican President, his administration, and his enabling Republican Congress, which includes John McCain.

I'll stop there, and welcome others to add thoughts on this issue as they see fit.

As a preface I don't represent any of my ideas as being representative of Sen. Obama's.

I don't get the whole liberals will raise taxes canard. It rests on the supposition that raising taxes is a bad thing.

Finland has the best schools in the world. Kids are not tested to meet some national standards for funding purposes and kids are allowed to pursue their interests. This teaches them to be thinkers.

They also have free education through graduate school.

New parents are given paid leave to be with their newborns....now that's a family value.

They have social protections that allow people to take risks in their work and not worry about how they're going to feed their kids if the boss doesn't like what they're doing.

They have a shorter work week, more mandated vacation and higher production levels.

They pay quite a bit more in taxes.

I'm willing to pay that kind of tax if I know that I can pursue my education, do the work that interests me, know that I have a safety net in case I fail and that if the stock market crashes, or a radical political party hijacks the government and does its best to remove any kind of oversight, I will still be able to survive after I retire.

They are not alone. Other countries in similar situations. France has the best health care system in the world......free to citizens and it costs less than we pay in the US. Their currencies are far out performing our dollar. They don't pay 40% or more of their income for housing.

Basically they manage the taxes collected in a way that works.

As long as we get stuck at the cave man argument: "Ugh, tax is bad" we never have the opportunity to look at how we could leverage that money in a way that would better the country. Of course we have to get past the other canard of "Government is Bad"..but that's another whole discussion.

I think Sen. Obama understands that there is a way for us to do some things that will help the majority of
society. Medicare spends just over 1% on administration. Private insurance averages 14%, give or take, that is one way to free up some money that could be used to improve schools, fund higher education, build mass transportation, work toward breaking the oil addiction. And it's just a start.

And I know I'll hear the other argument designed to take us away from the issue at hand..."If you don't like it in the US go live in one of those countries". Is the US that developmentally disabled that it cannot sustain a discussion of how government could be bettered? Using patriotism to quell discussion is a fascist tactic, democracies are supposed to discuss ideas.

And I can hear the conservatives now: gay marriage, abortion, religious freedom...blah blah blah...again all designed to take us away from really looking at the real issues that government should be addressing.

And I haven't even gotten to the trillion dollar debacle of Iraq and an Administration that used patriotism and deception to take us into that morass. In the words of Dr. Phil......"How's that workin' for us?"

NOTE: Sorry this turned into a rant, I couldn't help myself