Poll data from PA in 2000 and 2004 is not applicable in this discussion. Due to the failing economy, housing market, and Biden value, Obama wins PA by 4-8 points this election.

He might lose some Kerry and Gore voters, but his gain with independents and new voter registration will outnumber those Kerry and Gore voters he loses.


Anyone who understands politics EASILY sees PA will go Blue this election barring a major gaffe by Obama/Democrats.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsi...000/7600592.stm

Interesting look at the people who support Sarah and John "Why rednecks may rule the world" . Obama will have a hard time winning them over and the electoral votes they control.

Please...Obama is NOT winning them over, period!!! They weren't voting for him before and there is nothing negative that may come out about McCain and Palin that will make them vote Obama.

Very true, but he will have to win over enough other voters in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan to counter the proud redneck votes. That means Obama has to work extra hard to make sure all those new voters from the primaries show up at the polls. It probably wouldnt hurt to send HRC into some of those areas as well since she did better in the primaries with that group than BO did.

ungh ungh...yall ain't right

The author of the BBC article describes the redneck ethos pretty well.

I've never understood why rednecks are so proud of not being well traveled and schooled to the point of actually ridiculing those who are. It seems antithetical to all those people who came through Ellis Island who wanted their children to have an education so the children wouldn't have to work backbreaking, mind-numbing jobs.

At what point did education and travel become bad things and things to be avoided?

So McCain isn't the only one hiding behind a skirt.

Oh, he's not hiding. It's just that Outsports can't handle him.

uhhh....

There's a new poll out today from the state of Ohio. In the Quinnipiac poll of Ohio "likely voters," Barack Obama is now in front there by 5 points (49 to 44%), up from a 1% lead Obama held last month in Ohio. This one bears watching because there is virtually no scenario where McCain can win the presidency without winning Ohio.

Riiiiiiiiiight. And Pork Barrel Palin said "thanks, but no thanks" to Congress on that Bridge to Nowhere.

Depends on how they're defined: A Redneck Liberal




Seen at the Democratic Convention


The Texan


I read the transcript of his appearance on the Late Show last night. Sometimes when he turns on the charm his likeability can go off the scale. And I haven't seen a presidential candidate smarter; though he bows to Bill Clinton's political savvy on the same show. (A presage of their upcoming meeting)

We haven't seen Palin in an interview yet. The unvailing will take place on her home-turf with the handpicked Gibson from ABC who couldn't get enough of pressing Obama on the Jeremiah Wright issue. Apparently they think their press-bashing has softened him up a bit. Expect much self-righteousness, whoa-is-me-ism and changing the subject to Obama, if he dares to question any of her religious views.

I wondered about that as well. It seems to be a peculiar American concept that confounds the rest of the world.

That cutie Jim Vandahee ( sp?) from Politico said this afternoon, we need to stop worrying about the national polls, and concentrate more on the state by state polls. I echo what you said SFJohn. Obama has a good lead in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, and McBush is still leading in Florida. 3 outta 4 now ain't bad, and Obama met with Bubba today. I expect good things to come out of that, namely Bill and Hill hitting the roads and inroads of maybe Appalachia where Hillary generally won out over Obama......there is reason for optimism....also heard one of the Republican talking heads pretty much admit this lipstick crap was a setup which the media took and ran with.....

Well I do agree that this lipstick stuff is crap, but there is still plenty of time for these polls to shift in one way. An interesting thing that I learned today is that all of these polls coming out don't include all of these new Democratic registants this year. So, their reliability and the attention that is being paid them may be really misleading.

In addition, there is a recent Newsweek article though that has talked about Obama's strategic blunders so far during the general election campaign. He ran a good primary, but seems to be sputtering in the general phase of this election. He didn't end the primary on a particularly high note with Hillary really kicking butt down the stretch. The article stated that the main blunders have been:

A. Declining to take federal financing for the general election.
This mistake is two-pronged. Obama stands accused of flip-flopping on the matter, saying in 2007 that he’d accept those funds and the cash limits that come along with it. In relying solely on private money, Obama appears to have ceded some higher ground to McCain, who, with his public funding, appears slightly more immune to interest groups. On a more practical level, Obama will have to leave the campaign trail more often to headline fundraising events. He’ll likely spend more time than he should in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles and less than he needs in Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit.

B. Declining McCain’s offer to hold ten town hall debates
When Obama was leading the race in leaps and bounds, he blew off this GOP proposal. Too bad. Had Obama locked in that deal, he would now be able to confront McCain face-to-face about some of the Republicans’ more aggressive – if not to say cynically manipulative – recent television advertising claims. An Obama-McCain series would also have drawn attention away from Gov. Palin, the autumn cover girl.

C. Failing to go all the way with the Clintons
Yes, I know, Bill and Hillary got prime speaking roles in Denver. And yes, I know, the Clintons are difficult to deal with and probably hope Obama fails. Still, it’s Obama’s task to latch on to them, even against their will. But he was too proud. Although he’s going to see the former president this week, Obama should have broken bread with Bill months ago. Obama needs the Clintons to defend and work for him. They are not eager to do so, but it was still Obama’s task to trap them into displays of political enthusiasm. It’s just my guess, but I think Mr. Clinton would have been open to the wooing – if for no other reason than to recapture his reputation as an avatar of the civil rights cause. Obama also neglected to court Clinton fundraisers and supporters in places like Los Angeles. All they want from Obama is a phone call. They would swoon.

D. The 22-state strategy
For months, the Obama campaign invested advertising time and organizing money in an impressive array of red states that haven’t been on the Democrats’ radar in recent elections. This made for great press clippings. But, for the most part, it was a waste of assets. Except for perhaps Virginia, most out-of-the-way states do not seem likely to end up in Obama’s fold. He’d be more successful focusing on traditional battlegrounds.

E. Failing to state a sweeping, but concrete, policy idea
It is not enough to be for change – everybody is, or is trying to be. To make it stick, Obama needed, and needs, to put forth an easy-to-grasp grand proposal, one that would encapsulate what his central message. That tagline? That he is dedicated, body and soul, to advancing the economic interests of hard-working, average Americans. He has the makings of such a proposal – his tax cuts for low and middle-income families. But he has yet to package that, or anything else, in an easy-to-grasp, hard-number plan for voters. Instead, he’s got more of a laundry list than an actual rallying cry.

F. Remaining trapped in professor-observer speak
When you listen to Obama, it sometimes feels like you’re hearing a smart but distant analysis of the political scene. He sounds like a writer or teacher, but not the leader of a political crusade. Obama has been far too “meta” – a detached commentator on his own situation and his own country. Voters want an action plan, not an exegesis.

G. Failing to attack McCain early
Obama was wary of attacking a man who had suffered so much during the Vietnam War – an understandable emotion. But that wariness, combined with Obama’s natural inclination to be seen as the nice guy (one who lets others do the knifing) lead to an unfortunate result. It gave two free months for McCain to build up a head of steam as a war hero, as opposed to what Obama needed to paint him as publically: a man beholden to corporate interests and a likely clone of George W. Bush.

Full article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26640489/

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

I would pretty much have to agree with all of that. I have not been pleased with how he has run the general election campaign thus far, and I know several people who are supporters who have sent emails telling him to step up his damn game.

I read this assessment by the I think, brilliant, Howard Fineman, and I agree, Obama has made some mistakes. I am pretty sure the camp would agree there are areas where there is room for improvement. The debates obviously will be critical....I still have faith.....

I think Obama needs to rephrase that lipstick statement, or even recruit Hillary:

"You can put lipstick on a Palin, but it's still a Palin."

A Pa-lin comparison to what this nation needs to represent the free world and take on the tough challenges required to lead this great nation!

Most Ohio polls show McCain with a 2 to 5 point lead. The newest poll in Florida shows the race has gone from a tie to a 7 point McCain lead. Obama had led in New Mexico and Virginia - two states Bush won in 2004 - for months. No more. McCain has caught him in both those states. Those dozen or so states like North Carolina, Indiana, Montana, etc. where Obama felt he could compete are now all squarely back in McCain's column, all secured for McCain by the choice of the very popular Sarah Palin for VP. Rasmussen, in addition to their rolling three-day poll, publish every day their liklihood of each candidate winning in November. Since March Obama had consistently been the likely winner with a 60% liklihood, but that has changed. As of today, Rasmussen says McCain has a 52% liklihood of winning, and Obama is now the underdog with a 48% liklihood of succeeding.

I'm alternately amused and appalled by the insistence that all is right with the Obama campaign. It clearly is not. McCain is defining the race on his terms, and has Obama on the ropes right now. This race now looks exactly like the 2004 race, and Obama looks like the latest in a series of impotent, dispassionate Democratic, a la Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

Quick Update on Friday morning: Rasmussen, which as someone else said tends to be the most careful polling outfit, has just released their daily poll. It shows McCain surging. He now attracts 49% of the vote and has a 3 point lead on Obama - his largest lead in six months.

Supposedly Matt Damon had this to say about Palin:

Thank goodness, I've been waiting to hear what Matt Damon thinks before I make up my mind. What does Brangelina say?

I'm bemused by the sudden silence on here, and the absence of the daily breathless reporting on which polls show Obama ahead by how much. So I'll update the polls. The Rasmussen poll today shows McCain's support continuing to grow; he maintains a 3 point lead, and now is at the magical 50% threshold. Gallup shows the race once again tightening a bit, with McCain leading only 47-45% (statistically insignificant). Still, it's s huge change from Obama's 9-point lead about ten days ago. Technically, it's still early, but not that early. Historically voters start focusing on the race after Labor Day, and thus far as they've focused they've chosen McCain.

I know I am kind of interested in the electoral vote and what is going on with that. As of now Obama has about a 15 point lead, according to what I saw on "Meet the Press" this morning. Still with many states still listen as tossups. I posted a few days ago that Jim Vandahee of Politico said don't worry so much about national poll numbers now, pay more attention to the state by state polls. I am also hoping to hear Obama and the Dems start attacking McCain that Alan Greenspan said yesterday the U.S. CANNOT afford John McCains proposed tax cuts...just another big reason why we cannot afford McCain........Chuck Todd said this morning the magical number for Obama in the big election is 48% If he doesn't pull at least that much, McCain wins..he had another comment that troubled me. He said when you talk to the large number of undecided voters out there, they agree the economy is in the toilet, they would like a little more money in their wallet, but when you asked them why they are undecided they can't or won't tell you why....

Was reading elsewhere that the key to the election might be to keep pounding the idea of "it's the economy, stupid" over and over. People don't want to see Dems go after Palin and bash her - but they need to see that Obama DOES have ideas on how to fix things (they already know McCan't doesn't have a clue). When it comes right down to it, these people need to realize that a pretty face and upbeat personality isn't going to help them at the gas pump, nor will it put food on the table, or help with health coverage for their families. THAT's what all the "undecideds" and "leaners" need to be hearing - not "Palin is unqualified" (even though she SO totally is).

I believe the exact quote was, "Can we adopt Bristol's baby?"

I personally never had much faith in the polls, considering how many times they were wrong during the primaries, and in past elections. There are so many additional factors in this election that all of these poll companies just don't hold so much water with me. Given the uniqueness of this election, I think it makes me believe them even less. I do believe that Obama has lost a step, but the closeness of the polls 9 days ago and today tell me its up in the air. The debates have not happened yet, and Palin is still riding the buzz of her being picked and nominated. I think things are going to become clearer after the debates and by early to mid October. At that point, I may start believing the polls somewhat. I still think Obama's grassroots style campaign is being underestimated. In the end, he better have captains at certain polling stations ready to make sure there is no suppression, and make sure that his get out the vote techniques are like nothing we've ever seen. So at this point, poll schmoll. You can post every poll from here to election day for all I care. We've seen many times not to put so much faith into them. So poll post away.

Let's all sing along!

Mine was the 646,666th hit. If we can get it up to 666,666 maybe something interesting will happen.

kick, thank you for your post. After a crazy week of waaaaaaay too much work and way too little sleep, it was interesting to look back into this thread. A lot of things to address, so this post might be a bit scattered ...

Sarah Palin has made liberals go absolutely whacko (not that they were making much sense to begin with). I can't believe how many attacks have been made about Palin's dedication (or alleged lack thereof) to her family. Katie Couric's husband battled and eventually succumbed to cancer when her children were just 6 and 2. She went from the Today Show to a far more demanding job as a news anchor. Not a peep from a single journalist, pundit, or Hollywood liberal, wagging their fingers that she should be home with her two fatherless children. I'm sure they would be HORRIFIED if anybody did say such a thing. Yet these same people unconscionably attack Sarah Palin's choices.

Somebody start lining up the violin section for all these boo-hoo liberals, who scream, "Fraud!" and "Suppression!" whenever they lose an election. I guess they conveniently forget incidents like the St. Louis polls staying open well after their official closing time, slashing the tires of Republican get-out-the-vote staff vehicles, or (going way back, because this has been going on a long time) the 43 "citizens" who "voted" for JFK, never mind that the address given was a long-abandoned tenament. Look, voter fraud is wrong, and every incident (on both sides) should be investigated thoroughly. But if Obama loses (please oh please), it will be because mainstream America sees him for the ultraleftist he is, not because of the Cult of Victimhood's allegations of voter fraud, 100% of which is apparently carried out by Republicans (yeah, right). By the way, I don't know about losing scholarships, but there's a damn good reason localities discourage or disallow students from registering to vote in their university town. They are temporary residents who don't pay property taxes. Communities don't want students (or any other nonresident group, for that matter) to vote for this that and the other spending initiative because students will graduate and be long gone while the townspeople will be paying the property tax hikes for many years to come.

Of however many mistakes the Obama camp has made, the biggest of all has been (and continues to be) made by Obama himself. Has there ever been a major presidential candidate who has devoted so much time and energy attacking the opposition's Vice Presidential candidate?? Fighting the VP candidate diminishes Obama so much more than anything the Republicans could possibly say or do. Of course, Obama hasn't been helped by all the writers and pundits who argue, "Our #1 is more qualified than your #2!" Huh wha?? In any case, Sarah Palin has clearly gotten inside Obama's noggin. I noticed a more folksy style in Obama's recent appearances (droppin' the g's, for example). Oh gawd, make him stop!! Former editors of Harvard Law Review really Really REALLY shouldn't try to sound folksy. It makes me cringe almost as much as Hillary Clinton's fake Southern accent.

I totally agree that the national polling, while interesting, is almost irrelevant. It's the state-by-state polling that counts. It warms my heart to see that both fivethirtyeight and RealClearPolitics show McCain with a lead in the Electoral College, because he must have been way behind a month ago. I never thought John McCain could become the nominee because he had pissed off too many big wigs in the party. I just heard too many senators (Mitch McConnell, for one) say that he used to be friends with John McCain. Then I thought Obama would just coast to victory in November. McCain faked with Boring White Guy candidates like Romney and Pawlenty, which lulled Obama into the safe Biden choice and away from the ballsy Hillary choice, then totally turned the election around with his surprise Palin pick. Simply brilliant! The Dems are still reeling, and I shall never underestimate John McCain again.

Back to the states, didn't the Dems rack up +1 million registered voters over the Reps in Pennsylvania? With that kind of advantage, it's difficult to imagine Pennsylvania going red, but locals have a far better perspective on this. Yikes! just saw that Zogby puts McCain up 4.8% in Pennsylvania!! Wow, that 50-state strategy must feel more ancient than the Dead Sea Scrolls to Obama staffers. In another bellweather state, Nevada, Palin's appeal is alive and well. 5,000 Sarah fans came to see her in Carson City last Saturday, pretty damn impressive since Carson City's population is only 57,000, and a puny 600 came to see McCain in his last Nevada appearance.

IIRC, Zogby was pretty much spot-on with the 2004 election results. But with more Americans than ever going with just a cell and no landline, polling is a lot more difficult than it used to be. Another factor that sets the 2008 election apart is voter turnout. Nobody wants to admit, even in a confidential or anonymous survey, that they don't vote. It's seen as so unpatriotic, so un-American, so ... lazy. But in election after election, only about half of registered voters actually make it to the polls, and there are zillions of citizens who aren't even registered. Because of Palinmania, if the polls are showing that this election is within the statistical margin for error, then I'm guessing McCain wins because his running mate will spark a surge of turnout.

Considering that McCain/Palin have absolutely NOTHING to run on, more like run FROM, yes, they are doing remarkably well. I am sure Karl Rove is behind the scenes orchestrating each and every move the ticket is making. And I will give them credit, the Palin pick was good, but can you please tell me what McCain plans to do regarding the economy? You know the one we keep "whining" about, the "mental recession"? Take alot at the stock market this morning...we are in some SERIOUS trouble, financial institution after financial institution is failing, and I have heard nothing, NOTHING about just exactly what McCain/Palin plan to do to deal with the economic mess, the home mortgage mess, we do know where he stands on oil, drill, drill drill, like there is no tomorrow, and Iraq, where we shall stay until we "win", however long that takes, and at a cost of BILIIONS per month...and I would love to hear the tickets response to the fact that Alan Greenspan over the weekend said the country CANNOT afford McCains tax cuts for the wealthy, that he proposes in 2010, more like a Bush extension.......so yeah, the only thing the ticket does well at is attacking, since they have NOTHING to run on...unless there is some aspect I have missed.

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophanes
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher
Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster
Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween
Symbols by Edna Barth

Certainly an intriguing list, but I also suspect not real. In 1996/7, the Wasilla librarian recalls a conversation about banning books, but no mention of specific titles. The librarian was given a termination notice in January 1997.

A number of the books on the list were published after the likely time frame the discussions occurred. For example, the Harry Potter books:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling published 30 June 1997
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling published 2 July 1998.
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling published 8 July 1999
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling published 8 July 2000

And finally, the one book that has been identified in a few places as a book that at minimum Palin's church wanted banned is not on the list - Pastor, I Am Gay by Howard Bess.

I remain dubious of any proclaimed list of books that Palin wanted banned from the Wasilla library.

Good heavens, that list is better fiction than some of the books on it!

The librarian is on record as saying that the book that prompted the question is Daddy's Roommate, but that no specific books were ever mentioned as being objectionable, let alone banned.

Daddy's Roommate is the only book I specifically recall being mentioned as well.

Yeah. She does a 30-minute show instead of a 2- or 3-hour show. She used to have to get up at like 3 or 4 am to do the show. Now she can wake up at a normal hour. And comparing the job of news anchor or talk show host to running the country is so laughable, no wonder the term "right-wing nuts" is completely spot-on.

This is terribly misleading. It reads like it was written by a McCain staffer. First of all, people have not "attacked" Palin's choices. They've asked hard questions about whether the parent of an infant with special needs that will require a lifetime of care and attention can do justice to both their parental responsibilities and the responsibilities of governing. I think in this day and age, when many 44-year old men share parenting duties, a man would be asked the same hard questions, and rightfully so. That's a worthy discussion to have, and if the Republican party is truly the party of families, they - and you - should welcome a nuanced discussion of the decisions and sacrifices that parents of special needs children must make.

Secondly, the Katie Couric comparison is facile. They are not analogous situations. Sarah Palin's child is an infant with Down's Syndrome. Yes, Couric was widowed wheh her children were 6 and 2. That was TEN years ago. She has written and spoken often about how she stayed on the Today Show longer than she might have otherwise because her FIRST priority was her children, and working the Today Show she could pick them up from school, do homework with them, and have dinner with them. So Couric is actually a perfect example of a parent who made career decisions that put her children FIRST. When Couric finally left NBC for an anchor job - which, by the way, is LESS demanding - her children were 15 and 11, and neither had a developmental deficiency. So it's really not even close to being a comparable situation, and if it were Couric's choices would negate rather than support your indignation.

Okay, MM, I have to admit that your reply was better than mine.

we must be reading different critics (or as you would say, "askers of hard questions"). First of all, I think anyone should think looooooooooooong and hard before publicly "questioning" someone else's parenting. What makes me a doubter about these heart-of-gold "questioners" is that they're not reporting some very significant facts about the Palins. Greta Van Susteren interviewed Todd Palin tonight, and apparently his work schedule with the oil company means that he is away on the North Slope of Alaska for a week, then off and home for a week. What really came across about this guy is that he is very comfortable in his own skin, and doesn't seem to have even the vaguest hang-ups about being Mr. Mom or playing second fiddle to a superstar (or at least superstar-in-the-making) wife. Something else I haven't heard from any of these heart-of-gold questioners is that Todd Palin is currently on leave from his oil company job while Sarah travels the lower 48 on the full-time job of campaigning. Finally, you'd have to scour the Internet pretty thoroughly to read anything about the Palins' extended network of family (Sarah's retired parents, for example) and friends who help out quite a bit. Where are all the liberals who gushed over "It Takes A Village"?? I don't hear Hillary Clinton, or any other liberals for that matter, praising Sarah Palin for figuring out a way to take care of her family and have a career. Instead they question. Sorry, but when all these other aspects of the story are left out of this "nuanced discussion," it just doesn't come off as anything well-intentioned or borne of good motivations.

Let's not forget that the Palins are not rich. They have to work. Todd Palin is well-aware that his wife is something special, someone destined for greatness, and he seems to be quite happy making the necessary sacrifices to advance his wife's career. But again, funny that you don't hear any liberal feminists applauding the Palins for it. Where is NOW now?? In contrast to the Palins' financial situation, Katie Couric was (assuming she has a whit of financial sense) quite well-off at the time her husband's death. Despite being a single parent who didn't need to work, she chose to continue pursuing her career. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing Katie Couric (or even "questioning" her). I'm just trying to point out the hypocritical double-standard that questioning Sarah Palin is A-OK whereas questioning Katie Couric would have been vilified.

I'm just not a big fan of passing judgment. Yes, I realize it's human nature (although it seems to come a lot more naturally to some than to others), but it makes me uncomfortable, especially when all the facts aren't known. For example, I am disgusted by the conservative pundits and (mostly) bloggers who are criticizing Joe Biden's low level of charity giving over the years. Because I don't know the details of Biden's private life or his personal financial situation (can't imagine his critics do either), I give the guy the benefit of a doubt, and without a penny of remuneration from the McCain campaign

First of all, it's clear Todd Palin is on leave from his job. But you need to do some homework before you post things about him and/or Katie Couric, because your grasp of the facts is lacking. All you have to do is look at your TV screen to see that Todd Palin is not at home, he's on the campaign trail WITH his wife, as he was for the six days after the Republican Convention. As for the extended family, I think that's great, but frankly it only adds to the questions. Their entire extended family won't be with them in Washington, which again raises the question "how will they do justice to the needs of a Downs Syndrome child?" As you say, they're not rich, and the 24-hour help they will need does not come cheap and is not paid for by taxpayers. So it's a legitimate question, and I don't think it should be brushed off with partisan hysteria about sexism and double standards by people who have often built their careers on the unholy trinity of sexism, double standards and racism. Lest there be any umbrage taken, I am not referring to you individually, but I am referring to the PTB at the Republican party, whose crocodile tears on this subject have been quite amusing.

I was saying last week that it was too early and too soon after the Repuglican convention to put much stock in the polls and that things would reverse. As more and more comes out about Palin, and as the economy worsens by the hour it seems, the surge towards Obama has begun. Both the Survey 2000 tracking poll and the Diageo/Hotline tracking poll today have Obama up nationally by 4% (48 to 44 percent in both), a dramatic reversal from last week and basically back to where the race was before the conventions. Fox/Rasmussen has severely tightened to a 48-47% dead heat (McCain has lost a percentage point for each of the last 3 days). And Gallup's tracking poll today has shown McCain's 5-point lead from just a few days ago gone... and it too has it 48-47%.

Palin in particular in the Survey 2000 poll has seen her favorables/unfavorables changing in a big way, in large part due to people seeing last week's interview where she was clueless on so many issues. Only 5 days ago, Palin was viewed favorably by 17% (52 to 35 percent). Today it's 45-44. She is now as much of a liability as she is helpful to McCain.

While it may still be too early to tell what will happen, McCain's advantage is gone.

I've said it before and I will say it again. Americans absolutely baffle me. I certainly hope the latest trending towards Obama continues but I find it incredible it is even remotely close. By any measure - your government of the last 8 years has failed you - and yet almost 50% want more of the same?

Your campaigns drag on for way too long and cost obscene amounts of money, you are losing allies left, right and center around the world, your economic influence is waning, your reputation as a moral world leader is completely shot, you have had thousands of soldiers killed in a war based on lies, the war you should be fighting in Afghanistan is being lost, Canadians who rightly stayed out of your Iraq fiasco and now have sacrificed over 90 soldiers in Afghanistan are wondering what are we doing there if the bulk of US attention seems not to be there but on Iraq, you have more people than ever not with health insurance - which to the rest of the Western world is absolutely beyond belief!, your banking system is falling apart due to lack of oversight and regulation, tens of thousands of Americans are losing their homes due to the mortgage fiasco, you are in debt to a level that uses too many zero's to even keep track of, much of that debt to less than friendly nations like China, you have some of the greatest educational institutions in the world yet seem determined to ignore science when it comes to such things as global warming etc etc

And yet with all that happening - what are the election coverage conversations about - they are about such things as whether or not certain comments are demeaning to Palin as a mother - or whether or not the phrase 'lipstick on a pig' is insulting to Palin. All of this complete and utter nonsense - considering the stakes . Yet it is becoming abundantly clear that exactly that, is what the plan is in order for McCain to get elected. And that all makes sense considering that surely, surely he can not get elected based on the real issues of the day. So instead continue to be obtuse and vague on real issues, plant false stories, feign anger and twist comments all in a deliberate attempt to keep voters attention away from the REAL issues. Issues that should Americans take notice - are DESTROYING lives in your country and destroying your reputation around the world.

America used to be looked up to by the rest of of the world - you strived for greatness and much of the rest of the world followed in admiration. You chose leaders who were exceptional. Now it seems that the dumbing down of America is at its zenith in this presidential campaign. Palin is not qualified to be the President of the United States - and that has always been what people considered to be THE main pre-requisite to be selected as a VP running mate. Especially when she is the pick of your oldest ever first time Presidential candidate - one who has an iffy health record. That fact was THE discussion everybody in the rest of the world was having within 24 hours of McCain picking her. The conclusion she is NOT qualified is almost unanimous internationally from all your allies and friends. I - like I'm sure most around the world thought that Americans would have to recognize this - they must - don't they? Yet until the last day or two the reverse seems to be true. The deceiptful campaign of lies and manufactured outrage over twisted interpretation of comments such as the lipstick comment disgrace, that is the campaign that over the last couple of weeks seemed to be gaining traction with Americans. The - yes Americans are that dumb - and we can win this by lying to them campaign seriously has a chance to win and seems to have traction.
I sit here 16 miles from your border shaking my head in absolute disbelief. My roommate returned from two weeks in Spain last night and among his first words were - 'What can they possibly be thinking down there?' And after catching just one hour of the pathetic, lie filled spin on just one CNN program, he looked at me and said 'they're not buying this - are they?'

He went on to explain how the dozens of Europeans he met all were truly at a complete loss and were hoping he may be able to provide some insight in to what was happening with these polls showing McCain ahead. FYI - many people he met mistakenly would assume he was American with all the A&F and other American brand name clothing he tends to wear - and my roommate is black so they would originally be interested to hear what special significance the Obama campaign may have for him. Even once they found out he is Canadian they would still grill him with questions, figuring we live so close to you guys that perhaps he could somehow provide some insight to help them understand, because what they saw happening made absolutely no sense to them at all. Which of course is something my roommate could not do - because after all - how do you explain the inexplicable.

He went on to say - and I agreed completely - that it is so tempting to react like most Europeans are - rolling their eyes in disbelief and laughing - because you truly will be the laughingstock of the free world if McCain/Palin win. But of course with our economy so closely tied to yours I can't afford to laugh. I have to hope that there are enough Americans who can see through this disgraceful charade of a McCain campaign and wake-up and realize America can be great again. But not with a win by the wrong side this November.

And do you know what scares me the most about all of this. Some people will take what I have just said above and somehow creatively spin it into a reason to vote for McCain - Palin. You know - one of those laughable - "Well if that's what those damn pinko Canadians - you know that's where the 9-11 terrorists came from and they let those damn fags get married - if thats what they are saying - then it is my God given patriotic duty to vote for John McCain." "And besides I hear that Obama guy is Muslim."

And sadly - yes - Canada does still get blamed for 9-11 by some of your kooky right wing Republican congressional candidates - and yes - some people actually will vote for McCain because of things like what is written above.

And unfortunately - unlike the Europeans - I can't laugh - I can only helplessly watch and feel so sad for what is happening to a once great country.

Travelpat, as a Canadian I couldn't agree more. I know in our office in Toronto it is discussed a lot and everyone asks the same thing, "how can this woman possibly become a heartbeat from the presidency, she is unqualified and truly out of her depth Unfortunately, for now, she is being kept under wrap and no one gets to question her in depth, and as you said this election right now is not being on real issues.

Travelpat, as one who admires, loves and visits your great country every chance I can get, let me first say, well said! And I couldn't agree with you more. I do not have alot of answers for the myraid of questions you offer, all I can say is poltics down here is ugly and it is dirty, and its war between the left and the right, and probably always will be. We need reform here in so many areas, and in my opinion there needs to be some serious changes made to HOW and for how LONG we run for President down here. Two years is too damn long....by this point in the campaigns many are totally and completely burned out over everything that has happened or been said in both, in all the campaigns going on...not just the Presidentail campaigns, add the Congressional and the Senate races and then all the races at the state and city levels too...

Like you, I can come up with NO ANSWERS as to why, when so many things are going so bad and down the toilet, a race that shouldn't even be close, is. All I keep reading and hearing is that so MANY Americans are undecided about this campaign. The $64 million dollar question is HOW COULD THEY BE?? With everything going so badly....just the other day I posted comments about how many people in the Presidential election said they were " undecided", and when asked why, they had NO ANSWER. Makes no sense to me at all. If anyone has the answer I would love to hear it.

Their parenting is fair game if they're trying to force their religious rules and so forth on the rest of us. If they can't live by their own rules why should everyone else be forced to?

TravelPat, that was the mother-load of ejaculatory. Applause!!!

So, how do you think we sane Americans feel? I'll tell you how we feel, we feel cheated by crooks and criminals. That is how we feel (Ok, at least I do).

And about this Sarah Palin business, I will repeat what I have already said in this forum. She is a Domestic Terrorist. How is that? Because she terrorizes ME.



TRL

Why is the race so close? Come on people. Please lets not keep the whole elephant in the room thing going. Just as Chuck Todd said. He questions people who plan on voting Democrat for House and Senate seats, but are undecided for the Presidential race. Many...not all...but many are simply not going to elect this black man into the highest and most powerful office in the world. For those who openly admit it, thats fine. At least they have the balls to say it. I respect people more who can at least give me that truth. But, don't tell me you are undecided and can't tell me why. There are two CLEARLY DIFFERENT choices in this election. Just say that you have issues that the man is black and call it a day.

Now for other undecided voters I will say it probably comes down to voting on social issues versus economic ones. There are people out there who are pro life, pro gun, anti gay marriage but who know Republican administrations don't help their middle class or blue collar bottom line. I'm sure there are those out there as well. There are probably other undecided voters who do think Obama lacks the necessary experience and may be strong military minded but be for gay marriage, for gun control, and pro choice. So I mean I'm not going to say its all about race, but you can't tell me that if Al Gore or John Kerry had been running this particular year after 8 years of Bush foolishness that it would be this close. Race is a factor. It was always going to be a hurdle Obama would have to hope wouldn't be too high to climb. Its something that for the first time is a real issue in a general election campaign. Lets not skirt around the issue. Its just something that he and those who support him have to deal with.

Here's a positive spin on those undecideds - Barack Obama, race completely aside, represents a LOT of change. We are talking about a young guy, for a politician, who is explicitly trying to alter the political system that has evolved in this country. It is a pretty big risk to take for any politician - we have seen as recently as the Carter Presidency that a self-proclaimed outsider and reformer can be ineffective in office. Add to that risk Obama's race, and I think you can understand why the polls are close. McCain seems like a familiar choice, on many levels, and is offering, at least rhetorically, the same "change" as Obama, if less convincingly.

I remember right after McCain hit the point where he was the de facto nominee - I was concerned. Out of the entire GOP field, he was the only one who had any chance of winning, because of his history and the real warmth much of the US felt for him. I would have been stunned, for instance, if Romney had been the nominee and Obama were not trouncing him.

I am not saying that race is not a factor, but rather that it is not an insurmountable obstacle. It would be impossible in a country with the racial history we've had to simply accept the candidacy of an African-American Senator without some doubts - our country is simply too divided by race and too many whites only know the negative side of African-American life in the US. But most of those people are educable, as seen in the primaries. Consistently Obama's numbers went up once he began really actively campaigning in a state and introducing himself to the population. The more the voters got to know Obama, the more comfortable with his candidacy they got. It is the difference between knowing a specific member of a minority and knowing the stereotypes.

We see over and over that people who have a close relationship with a gay person are far more likely to support gay rights, and the same was undoubtedly true for the white/black divide 40 years ago. Even today we all know people who are not "racist" - e.g., they have friends of many different ethnicities, have no issue with minorities living in their communities - yet will still make sweeping generalizations about inner-city African Americans. What we do not know is what scares us, and we seek to address those fears with whatever knowledge we have. But when someone like Obama presents himself as explicitly different from the stereotypes, most people are willing to listen and learn.

It was always going to be an uphill climb for a black guy with a funny name to be President. But the fundamentals of our current economy and foreign policy are exactly why this is the best time in our entire history to try to elect just such a politician. Things are bad that people are willing to try a relatively unknown "other" just as in 1932 they were willing to take a gamble on a crippled one-term governor to take on the largest economic crisis we've ever known.

It's almost funny, the way things turned so quickly this week, and I fully expect the already-Obama-moving polls to move even more his way as the financial meltdown makes headlines and the press continues to call out McCain/Palin on their lies and distortions. So many people thought the Palin effect would be short-lived and the discussion move back to the fundamentals which are in Obama's favor. This week demonstrated how quickly that can happen in our truncated news cycle (just as one big gaffe could still upset Obama), and it certainly seems know, given the attacks Obama and Biden launched this week, that the Democrats have regained their footing.

Yes indeed. In fact the polls and alot of the pundits are now indicating that the Palin effect is starting to wear off, and may have already peaked. Her positives are down and her negatives are up...and now I hear the GOP in Alaska is going to sue to try to stop the investigation into Troopergate....Meanwhile McBush is now stating he is in favor of regulation re: the economy.

To the contrary. I think it may just now be taking effect. Sarah's got her gun and she's shooting blanks.

Maybe it's because I am where I am and am blessedly free of the 24/7 cable TV news cycle, but I just don't see what Obama proposes or stands for that alters the political system. I'm not anti-Obama...I just don't get it. When I worked on issues (veterans affairs) he dealt with on Capitol Hill, I certainly didn't see that in him.

CPT, even when I don't agree you always have a means of putting things in a manner which goes beyond the breathless ranting of so many others, so I'm very willing to hear it.

Thanks for the compliment PennState4Ever. The change that Obama has talked about and of which I've seen evidence are more about political process than actual policies. Certainly he has specific proposals for modifying health insurance to cover more, if not all, Americans; proposals for dealing with the Middle East (withdraw from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan); proposals for the economy and budget (tax credits for middle class, infrastructure investment, return to Paygo of the Clinton years); etc. It's all on the web site.

What has attracted me to his campaign though, is his willingness to talk through the soundbyte bullsh*t. Not that he doesn't use campaign slogans, but when you listen to him interviewed, as compared to, say, Sarah Palin (or many politicians for that matter), he does not simply circle back to the standard talking points. He actually addresses voters as intelligent human beings and shows a pragmagtic willingness to acknowledge he doesn't know it all.

I'm in the middle of his book, Audacity of Hope and from that my understanding is that the most fundamental difference, and change, that Obama will bring to the Presidency is a belief that a politician must challenge one's thinking to ensure one ideas and policies are actually best for the circumstances one is facing and the future that one is trying to aim for. He doesn't rely on the old left/right divisions. In the book, for example, he talks about being protested by pro-life groups during his Senate candidacy. He made a point of engaging these protesters and other pro-life voters who found his pro-choice stance to be a certain disqualifier. He may not have convinced any of them to vote for him, but he learned something by understanding their positions. He is one of the few politicians, for instance, who challenges the pro-life forces to work with pro-choice people to reduce unwanted pregnancies versus just screaming at each other across a barricade.

His decision to pick Biden is another example of this kind of thinking. He explicitly noted he wanted a Vice President who would challenge his views and push back. That is the exact opposite of the Bush/Cheney mode of governance.

I realize this is more ephemeral than concrete policy differences (which certainly exist between Obama and McCain), but I think it is vital of our country to do what we can to minimize the political and cultural divides and work effectively together. I don't know that Obama can succeed here (there's really no Kool-Aid drinking going on - he's no savior) but he is the only politician who is really talking about ways to cross those divides. For all of McCain's claims of working across the aisle and wanting to work with Democrats, he is exploiting the very same cultural hot buttons every recent GOP leader has hit in order to divide and conquer the electorate. Those are the kind of politics Obama is trying to stop. If you notice Obama's attack ads, they are about policy and campaign strategy - he's not saying McCain is a horrible person, rather he's wrong on the important issues. McCain has questioned Obama's patriotism, and painted him as an aloof liberal elitist.

In the grand scheme of things there isn't much a president can do directly to fix the economy, guarantee health care for everyone, etc. All he/she can do is select good, intelligent people for his cabinet, and provide inspiration to them, Congress and the nation to do what's right.

The Canadians and thinking Americans on this forum have got it right. The United States would give itself a huge, huge boost internationally from being the laughing-stock has-beens we are currently to a position of respect close to what we once had. Within the US I think the inspiring sense of change to us Americans that both the Obama and McCain camps are sloganeering would be greater with Obama than McCain.

Personally I can't decide whether to puke or laugh when I hear someone say they are for McCain/Palin because he/she is "one of us." I don't care what someone does for hobbies if I get a sense that the people running for office have the greater good of the nation in mind and display enlightened self-interest. McCain/Palin don't give me one iota of that feeling.