312 replies to this topic

[Cyberbrain]

Btw, is Mike Gravel still running, or did he drop out?

[missminni]

Btw, is Mike Gravel still running, or did he drop out?

If he were running independent, I would vote for him. I think it is time for a third party.
As for Obama being more electable than Hillary, I don't agree, regardless of polls. This is only in the short view.
The truth is, Conservatives will vote for McCain. They will never vote for Obama, regardless of the hype.
They might hate Hillary, but that's because they hate her policies, and since Obama has the same policies, why
would they vote for him? That whole line of reasoning is going to backfire on the democrats. Like I said,
I would have never considered voting independent before, but now, that is what I will vote.
Maybe young MTV first time voters who are fooled by image and rhetoric will vote
Obama. Maybe Blacks will vote for him so they can have a black president. Maybe mid western white
women will vote for him because Oprah said to.
But there are democrats who loved Clinton and still do, who are getting angry.
I know I am. Real angry. And like I said, I am pretty much a barometer for people from my generation....the baby boomers.
I don't like being told what I have to do. I don't have to vote for Obama. He is nothing more than
a prop for old school democrats who don't want to see Clinton in power. Plain and simple.
You know the old Clint Eastwood line "don't piss on me and tell me it's raining"
That's how I feel about Obama.

Edited by missminni, 19 February 2008 - 07:59 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

First the news, Obama beat Clinton tonight in Wisconsin by a growing margin. Once upon a time Wisconsin was considered all sown up by the Clinton camp.

The truth is, Conservatives will vote for McCain. They will never vote for Obama, regardless of the hype.
They might hate Hillary, but that's because they hate her policies, and since Obama has the same policies, why
would they vote for him?

Actually this is not a correct evaluation on three points.

One if McCain is the candidate and Obama is the opponent many of the religious right are refusing to vote.

Two, many mainstream conservatives are thoroughly disgusted with the Neo-Con agenda and feel rightly betrayed. McCain is no Neo-Con and can bring these votes in but their disillusionment with present policies is not a great incentive to continue them. These will turn out but do not feel threatened by Obama. Many of this group feel that Obama can be better dealt with in office than out and want to get the Dems to hang themselves in the coming crises. The point is they will not vote in droves for their party unless motivated by hatred.

And three hatred and fear is what many hard lined conservatives and the religious right feel for Clinton. Her candidacy will bring them out in droves as has been proved in the last four presidential elections. You are wrong about the personality issue, they fear some of the Democratic platform (what little they understand) but they have a visceral personal hatred of Clinton the candidate.

She is a lightning rod of polarization and if by nothing short of a miracle she were actually elected it would be herald a return to the most divisive and contentious dirty politics we have experienced since the second Clinton term. She is personally a cause celeb for the far right, a symbol to get the party to rally round the flag for.

I would have never considered voting independent before, but now, that is what I will vote.

Welcome to our club. I left the Dems after their betrayal of Carter. I have long felt Chomsky is correct about the duopoly and I can only hope that before this nation is torn apart in manipulated polarity that a multiparty system could emerge. However I doubt it will happen.

We need a multi party system to really bring out the majority of Americans to the polls and convince the 40% of all voters to actually feel represented by *somebody* in our rapidly failing representational democratic republic.

[Lazarus Long]

BTW Missimmi I never voted for Clinton or Gore.

To give you an idea of the importance of independent voting, in 2000 I voted in Palm Beach county and later observed the chad counting. Yes I have heard the lectures for years that Bush was my fault because I voted for Nader. I have also heard for years from Dem's about how I am supposed to vote for a lesser evil and not my conscious.

I commend you for realizing that democracy is about voting for what we believe in, not what we fear less.

[niner]

John McCain = more of the same. America can't afford that. IMHO, if you love your country and you want to see it get back on track, you have to get the Republicans out of power. Missminni, I know everyone is talking about the "plagiarism" accusation that came out of the Clinton campaign, but Obama and Patrick are friends and they have the same speech writer. I heard that Patrick suggested to Obama that he use those lines. So I'm not sure this should be called "plagiarism". I'm sure that in the future, Obama will be a lot more paranoid about attribution, as will everyone else. I don't know who Obama "owes", but I have a pretty good idea who Hillary is in with, and I'm not too crazy about them. In that regard I'll take a possible good over a known bad. And I would take either over a known disaster. McCain will put up far right wing judges for the Supreme Court. That alone is a stopper, but that wouldn't be the end of it. So missminni, I know you have a great affection for HRC and feel that it's high time that a woman had a shot at the White House. I agree about that, but I don't think Hillary really has a shot. I think a vote for Hillary in the primary is a vote for John McCain. All the polls back this up.

[biknut]

I've pretty much decided to vote for him. Even though he's too left for me, I don't like McCain. I hope he'll move to the center and maybe get everyone else to do the same. If he can, he might end up a good president. If he turns out crapy like Carter thatS OK too, because then we probably won't have to suffer another Democrat presidend for a long time.

[Alien65]

Barring an assassination or the death of Obamamania the U.S. will have a president Obama in 2009. I can only hope he has the judgement to pick good advisers because the world is scarier and more dangerous than any time in human history.

[biknut]

50% of the reason I'll vote for him is because he kicked her butt. It's not a male female thing either. If a good looking woman ever runs for president that has a pretty face, big boobs, a nice ass, long thin legs down to here, she'll get my vote.

It really doesn't matter who's president. Nothing much ever happens anyway. Taxes go up a little or down a little, but never enough to make any difference. All the soldiers killed in Iraq since the war started equal less people than were killed last year in auto accidents in the US. I get the feeling someone else is pulling the strings.

[missminni]

First the news, Obama beat Clinton tonight in Wisconsin by a growing margin. Once upon a time Wisconsin was considered all sown up by the Clinton camp.

The truth is, Conservatives will vote for McCain. They will never vote for Obama, regardless of the hype.
They might hate Hillary, but that's because they hate her policies, and since Obama has the same policies, why
would they vote for him?

Actually this is not a correct evaluation on three points.

One if McCain is the candidate and Obama is the opponent many of the religious right are refusing to vote.

Two, many mainstream conservatives are thoroughly disgusted with the Neo-Con agenda and feel rightly betrayed. McCain is no Neo-Con and can bring these votes in but their disillusionment with present policies is not a great incentive to continue them. These will turn out but do not feel threatened by Obama. Many of this group feel that Obama can be better dealt with in office than out and want to get the Dems to hang themselves in the coming crises. The point is they will not vote in droves for their party unless motivated by hatred.

And three hatred and fear is what many hard lined conservatives and the religious right feel for Clinton. Her candidacy will bring them out in droves as has been proved in the last four presidential elections. You are wrong about the personality issue, they fear some of the Democratic platform (what little they understand) but they have a visceral personal hatred of Clinton the candidate.

She is a lightning rod of polarization and if by nothing short of a miracle she were actually elected it would be herald a return to the most divisive and contentious dirty politics we have experienced since the second Clinton term. She is personally a cause celeb for the far right, a symbol to get the party to rally round the flag for.

I would have never considered voting independent before, but now, that is what I will vote.

Welcome to our club. I left the Dems after their betrayal of Carter. I have long felt Chomsky is correct about the duopoly and I can only hope that before this nation is torn apart in manipulated polarity that a multiparty system could emerge. However I doubt it will happen.

We need a multi party system to really bring out the majority of Americans to the polls and convince the 40% of all voters to actually feel represented by *somebody* in our rapidly failing representational democratic republic.

I totally get your point. I realized tonight, watching the results, that Obama is like an evangelical preacher.
He doesn't have to have substance. He's selling hope. Hope is like faith and faith is like God and people respond to that.
His followers look like worshippers. He will win. I agree. I also agree our "democratic
republic" needs a change in the way elections are conducted from the primaries to the electoral college.

[biknut]

our "democratic republic" needs a change in the way elections are conducted from the primaries to the electoral college.[/font][/size]

I think each party gets to decide for themselves how they pick their nominee.

[Alien65]

50% of the reason I'll vote for him is because he kicked her butt. It's not a male female thing either. If a good looking woman ever runs for president that has a pretty face, big boobs, a nice ass, long thin legs down to here, she'll get my vote.

It really doesn't matter who's president. Nothing much ever happens anyway. Taxes go up a little or down a little, but never enough to make any difference. All the soldiers killed in Iraq since the war started equal less people than were killed last year in auto accidents in the US. I get the feeling someone else is pulling the strings.

You might do some research on the Cuban Missle Crisis. Had JFK or Khrushchev made different decisions you would probably not be alive. It really does matter.

[biknut]

You might do some research on the Cuban Missle Crisis. Had JFK or Khrushchev made different decisions you would probably not be alive. It really does matter.

When someone behind the curtin pulls the strings the figure head (president) always gets the credit. JFK was a pain killer addict.

[Lazarus Long]

I do expect Obama to model much of his presidency on JFK's style of bringing in highly competent advisers. I actually find him more politically savvy than Carter in many respects too. You are correct Alien about how close we've come to the unthinkable and it always surprises me at the level of common denial of this. Though with comments like this:

All the soldiers killed in Iraq since the war started equal less people than were killed last year in auto accidents in the US. I get the feeling someone else is pulling the strings.

It shouldn't surprise us. Biknut the hubris and inconsideration exemplified by this statement is what gets us in so much trouble abroad. Your obvious focus on just American lives and ignoring or *implied disdain* for Iraqi lives that now total 100's of thousands by most estimates contributes to the problem. I hope you didn't intend it as such but it is how it appears regardless.

Those hundreds of thousands dead Iraqi's fall on our heads for destabilizing that nation with all too little regard to the consequences. Moreover in terms of the percent of their population, those numbers compare to us experiencing over a million dead and the death toll is still rising.

We need a multi party system to really bring out the majority of Americans to the polls and convince the 40% of all voters to actually feel represented by *somebody* in our rapidly failing representational democratic republic.

Just to be clear that comment should have read:

We need a multi party system to really bring out the majority of Americans to the polls and convince the 40% of all voters who are independents, to actually feel represented by *somebody* in our rapidly failing representational democratic republic.

You see in our *representational democracy* we are actually ruled by a minority that has effectively disenfranchised the majority once you base the analysis on total numbers of eligible voters versus the total number of registered voters, then against the total number who actually vote, and the total number of independents now comprise the largest portion of the total electorate and generally do not vote because they are offered little in the way of choices that reflect their values, opinions, and beliefs.

Most local elections are actually decided by as little as 15% of the eligible voters. That is not majority rule.

[biknut]

Those hundreds of thousands dead Iraqi's fall on our heads for destabilizing that nation with all too little regard to the consequences. Moreover in terms of the percent of their population, those numbers compare to us experiencing over a million dead and the death toll is still rising.

If my people were enslaved by a maniac I would gladly risk 100s of thousands to be free. Apparently no liberal can understand that concept.

[Lazarus Long]

Saddam was not a maniac he was a militarist and until he got away from our control he was our military strong man. Do not go too far down that path as many of his acts can be laid at our doorstep too. It is not about being liberal or conservative it is about being a rational and informed politician and diplomat. Military might will never function without adequate diplomacy.

You do not replace a dictator with chaos. When you do you end up with worse, genocide.

You do not tear down a national infrastructure while ignorant of the internecine conflicts it will unleash and unprepared to even admit to yourselves that nation building is a prerequisite of the post invasion occupation.

If we want to play savior then the least we should do is have made a commitment to be competent about it instead of self delusional and play Hollywood legends in our own minds.

[biknut]

Saddam was not a maniac

You do not replace a dictator with chaos. When you do you end up with worse, genocide.

You do not tear down a national infrastructure while ignorant of the internecine conflicts it will unleash and unprepared to even admit to yourselves that nation building is a prerequisite of the post invasion occupation.

If we want to play savior then the least we should do is have made a commitment to be competent about it instead of self delusional and play Hollywood legends in our own minds.

"Saddam was not a maniac" I strongly disagree with this statement.

As for the rest, the Republicans seem to understand this, but the Democrats don't seem to have a clue. The Rebublicans want to stay till everyone is safe, but the Dems want to get out now and let them fend for themselves.

[Lazarus Long]

BTW whoever wins the next election they inherit that mess we have made in not merely in Iraq but now spreading across much of Asia. There is little doubt that everyone sees that the present policies are miserable failures. McCain's big thing is that he will commit to the troops that we will support them and he acknowledges the strategic importance of being in Iraq and stabilizing it; so that will mean a draft and he knows it. The issue will come up trust me because whoever is President some type of draft is coming.

More important he has no plan to leave so that means we will *grow the military* under his leadership and he also considers Iran a threat so the odds of his policy inevitably extending the conflict to new borders is also going to come up. The irony of his "100 years in Iraq" comment is that he is the only conservative being even remotely honest about the debacle that has happened and rational in his commitment to the original goals of stabilizing the region.

The issue of Iran is also going to come up. They successfully launched a rocket into orbit recently and will do so again soon with a scientific package on board. Our military is flipping out and even the Russian consider the idea of Iran with an ICBM reach to be dangerous.

Our military is about to try its hand at the ASAT turkey shoot and I am curious to see how well they perform, as are the Russians, Chinese, NATO, the Iranians and many others. Musharraf has taken a whipping in the polls and how the Pakistani nukes play into this as well as our ability to pursue al Qaeda in Wahjiristan are also about to come out. I expect Obama to pull in a military man for his VP. Look to the choice being someone like Wesley Clarke, Murtha or someone with defense department training.

Also do not be surprised if Obama is elected, that he reaches across the aisle and appoints a Republican to be Secretary of Defense. At least this time it would be a position he was actually trained for; Colin Powell. I think he will surprise many and reach for a centrist unification during a time of clearly growing crisis.

[biknut]

BTW whoever wins the next election they inherit that mess we have made in not merely in Iraq but now spreading across much of Asia. There is little doubt that everyone sees that the present policies are miserable failures. McCain's big thing is that he will commit to the troops that we will support them and he acknowledges the strategic importance of being in Iraq so that will mean a draft and he knows it. The issue will come up trust me because whoever is President some type of draft is coming.

More important he has no plan to leave so that means we will *grow the military* under his leadership and he also considers Iran a threat so the odds of his policy inevitably extending the conflict to new borders is also going to come up. The irony of his "100 years in Iraq" comment is that he is the only conservative being even remotely honest about the debacle that has happened and rational in his commitment to the original goals of stabilizing the region.

The issue of Iran is also going to come up. They successfully launched a rocket into orbit recently and will do so again soon with a scientific package on board. Our military is flipping out and even the Russian consider the idea of Iran with an ICBM reach to be dangerous.

Our military is about to try its hand at the ASAT turkey shoot and I am curious to see how well they perform, as are the Russians, Chinese, NATO, the Iranians and many others. Musharif has taken a whipping in the polls and how the Pakistani nukes play into this as well as our ability to pursue al Qaeda in Wahjiristan are also about to come out. I expect Obama to pull in a military man for his VP. Look to the choice being someone like Wesley Clarke, Murtha or someone with defense department training.

Also do not be surprised if he reaches across the aisle and appoints a Republican to be Secretary of Defense. At least this time it would be a position he was actually trained for; Colin Powell. I think he will surprise many and reach for a centrist unification during a time of clearly growing crisis.

I don't disagree with much of this except I don't really blame Bush for causing it. It's not clear if our being in Iraq is all that bad considering it's a good spot to launch attacks from if a real crisis does materialize, and I think it might, but it started long before Bush, or even Clinton. Even before Carter. Bush is the only one that TRIED to do anything about it. Maybe next we'll get to see how well Obama can do. I wish him well.

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

-George Orwell

[modelcadet]

Also do not be surprised if Obama is elected, that he reaches across the aisle and appoints a Republican to be Secretary of Defense. At least this time it would be a position he was actually trained for; Colin Powell. I think he will surprise many and reach for a centrist unification during a time of clearly growing crisis.

For those who haven't seen it:

Sorry I didn't find the original.

[missminni]

BTW whoever wins the next election they inherit that mess we have made in not merely in Iraq but now spreading across much of Asia. There is little doubt that everyone sees that the present policies are miserable failures. McCain's big thing is that he will commit to the troops that we will support them and he acknowledges the strategic importance of being in Iraq and stabilizing it; so that will mean a draft and he knows it. The issue will come up trust me because whoever is President some type of draft is coming.

More important he has no plan to leave so that means we will *grow the military* under his leadership and he also considers Iran a threat so the odds of his policy inevitably extending the conflict to new borders is also going to come up. The irony of his "100 years in Iraq" comment is that he is the only conservative being even remotely honest about the debacle that has happened and rational in his commitment to the original goals of stabilizing the region.

The issue of Iran is also going to come up. They successfully launched a rocket into orbit recently and will do so again soon with a scientific package on board. Our military is flipping out and even the Russian consider the idea of Iran with an ICBM reach to be dangerous.

Our military is about to try its hand at the ASAT turkey shoot and I am curious to see how well they perform, as are the Russians, Chinese, NATO, the Iranians and many others. Musharif has taken a whipping in the polls and how the Pakistani nukes play into this as well as our ability to pursue al Qaeda in Wahjiristan are also about to come out. I expect Obama to pull in a military man for his VP. Look to the choice being someone like Wesley Clarke, Murtha or someone with defense department training.

Also do not be surprised if Obama is elected, that he reaches across the aisle and appoints a Republican to be Secretary of Defense. At least this time it would be a position he was actually trained for; Colin Powell. I think he will surprise many and reach for a centrist unification during a time of clearly growing crisis.

I agree with you on all counts and Colin Powell is a good bet.

It shouldn't surprise us. Biknut the hubris and inconsideration exemplified by this statement is what gets us in so much trouble abroad. Your obvious focus on just American lives and ignoring or *implied disdain* for Iraqi lives that now total 100's of thousands by most estimates contributes to the problem. I hope you didn't intend it as such but it is how it appears regardless.

This is the syndrome of the Ugly American. Alive and well and flourishing. It amazes me that with the graphic news coverage and the horrible
reality we see, people justify this atrocity. It's barbaric.

[Lazarus Long]

In what is another of the quirks of this election all the principal candidates are senators, a coincidence we can be sure will be fodder for conspiracists. However another aspect of it is that none of the candidates will lose their job if they lose the election so the campaign will be an interesting sight as they all must later continue to work together.

BTW, another concession to McCain if he loses might be the chair of a Senate committee that can reflect his history of bipartisanship.

One reason the religious right does not trust McCain is that he has consistently tried to work across the aisle and has not bought into the demagoguery. I expect that if he is the Republican candidate he will be forced to abandon the right in favor of trying to strip the working class and older, often conservative democrats that are willing to vote experience versus change. Many women in NY for example are already threatening to jump ship and vote McCain if Obama is nominated but that demographic is not going to win this election one way or another and they will be forced by circumstances to visit other issues, like SCOTUS appointments before the election is over.

During the campaign McCain might easily promise to nominate a centrist woman in the vein of justice O'Conner (and he will mean it) but if he does it will alienate his party's core base and that places him in a no win situation. This is only one of the many issues that will bring him crossover Dem votes but lose him votes from his own side and they tend to wash even. He will take a stand on torture and he is likely to reinforce the Geneva Convention and seek to validate US treaties that the present Administration has been all too willing to abandon. The hard right wing conservatives will not like his alacrity about the role of the military as global cop and nation builder.

Those who live in denial are never fond of honest messengers.

[missminni]

In what is another of the quirks of this election all the principal candidates are senators, a coincidence we can be sure will be fodder for conspiracists. However another aspect of it is that none of the candidates will lose their job if they lose the election so the campaign will be an interesting sight as they all must later continue to work together.

BTW, another concession to McCain if he loses might be the chair of a Senate committee that can reflect his history of bipartisanship.

One reason the religious right does not trust McCain is that he has consistently tried to work across the aisle and has not bought into the demagoguery. I expect that if he is the Republican candidate he will be forced to abandon the right in favor of trying to strip the working class and older, often conservative democrats that are willing to vote experience versus change. Many women in NY for example are already threatening to jump ship and vote McCain if Obama is nominated but that demographic is not going to win this election one way or another and they will be forced by circumstances to visit other issues, like SCOTUS appointments before the election is over.

During the campaign McCain might easily promise to nominate a centrist woman in the vein of justice O'Conner (and he will mean it) but if he does it will alienate his party's core base and that places him in a no win situation. This is only one of the many issues that will bring him crossover Dem votes but lose him votes from his own side and they tend to wash even. He will take a stand on torture and he is likely to reinforce the Geneva Convention and seek to validate US treaties that the present Administration has been all too willing to abandon. The hard right wing conservatives will not like his alacrity about the role of the military as global cop and nation builder.

Those who live in denial are never fond of honest messengers.

That's happening in Florida too, among loyal democrats, and not just women. That demagraphic is the parents of
the baby boomers, and baby boomers too. You might be right that it won't make a difference, but then again, it might. McCain is also
strong on Israeil, something Obama isn't, and the religious right are strong on Israeil. It plays into their prophecy. There are a lot of
variables at work here. It will be very interesting to see it play out.

[biknut]

Obama has come to Dallas today. The news is showing views of Reunion Arena that show thousands people standing in lines a mile long to get inside. Polls show Obama leading in Texas now, and Nationally he has a double digit lead.

Hillary is running one of the worst campaigns I've seen. All she seems to know how to do is
attack the other guy over and over even though that's not working. All she's doing is helping McCain.

[missminni]

Obama has come to Dallas today. The news is showing views of Reunion Arena that show thousands people standing in lines a mile long to get inside. Polls show Obama leading in Texas now, and Nationally he has a double digit lead.

Hillary is running one of the worst campaigns I've seen. All she seems to know how to do is
attack the other guy over and over even though that's not working. All she's doing is helping McCain.

Just an observation, but you seem to be guilty of the very thing you blame Hillary for, over and over.

[biknut]

Obama has come to Dallas today. The news is showing views of Reunion Arena that show thousands people standing in lines a mile long to get inside. Polls show Obama leading in Texas now, and Nationally he has a double digit lead.

Hillary is running one of the worst campaigns I've seen. All she seems to know how to do is
attack the other guy over and over even though that's not working. All she's doing is helping McCain.

Just an observation, but you seem to be guilty of the very thing you blame Hillary for, over and over.

So, I'm not running for anything. Besides that, most people agree with me.

[dangerousideas]

Speaking as a Canadian, I do have to wonder whether or not Americans are really ready for the "change" that Obama promises - notwithstanding the seperate question about whether or not he could actually deliver it, given the checks and balances of the American system.

If he actually has policies in mind to affect "change", it is not obvious what they are, how they would be implimented, or what they would cost. From what I have seen of him - especially speaking live and unfiltered on CNN - he speaks almost entirely in circular platitudes and is running a largely self-referential campaign based on charisma. He employs a speaking technique that freely and skillfully uses repetition, affiliation, and infection. He certainly has the eloquence to "move the mob". This gives him a certain personal power - and it may well give him political power as well. But is there really any evidence that he has the maturity, intellect, and judgement to lead the free world?

Ultimately, I do think that he is highly vulnerable to the apt and potentially accurate accusation that "he is an empty suit, with a good set of lungs."

If he does win the presidency, then we can only hope that he will surround himself with good people.

[missminni]

Speaking as a Canadian, I do have to wonder whether or not Americans are really ready for the "change" that Obama promises - notwithstanding the seperate question about whether or not he could actually deliver it, given the checks and balances of the American system.

If he actually has policies in mind to affect "change", it is not obvious what they are, how they would be implimented, or what they would cost. From what I have seen of him - especially speaking live and unfiltered on CNN - he speaks almost entirely in circular platitudes and is running a largely self-referential campaign based on charisma. He employs a speaking technique that freely and skillfully uses repetition, affiliation, and infection. He certainly has the eloquence to "move the mob". This gives him a certain personal power - and it may well give him political power as well. But is there really any evidence that he has the maturity, intellect, and judgement to lead the free world?

Ultimately, I do think that he is highly vulnerable to the apt and potentially accurate accusation that "he is an empty suit, with a good set of lungs."

If he does win the presidency, then we can only hope that he will surround himself with good people.

I agree that it is purely on his evangelical delivery that he's winning. His promises are vague, let alone
how he will accomplish them. As for surrounding himself with good people, he is already surrounded by the democratic establishment so we
can pretty much expect business as usual, which is a bit better than business as usual from the Republicans. My main concern is not so
much what he will do in office as it is if he can actually get elected. I think the Republicans are packing a secret knock out punch and
just waiting for the right time to deliver it.

[Alien65]

Speaking as a Canadian, I do have to wonder whether or not Americans are really ready for the "change" that Obama promises - notwithstanding the seperate question about whether or not he could actually deliver it, given the checks and balances of the American system.

If he actually has policies in mind to affect "change", it is not obvious what they are, how they would be implimented, or what they would cost. From what I have seen of him - especially speaking live and unfiltered on CNN - he speaks almost entirely in circular platitudes and is running a largely self-referential campaign based on charisma. He employs a speaking technique that freely and skillfully uses repetition, affiliation, and infection. He certainly has the eloquence to "move the mob". This gives him a certain personal power - and it may well give him political power as well. But is there really any evidence that he has the maturity, intellect, and judgement to lead the free world?

Ultimately, I do think that he is highly vulnerable to the apt and potentially accurate accusation that "he is an empty suit, with a good set of lungs."

If he does win the presidency, then we can only hope that he will surround himself with good people.

I agree that it is purely on his evangelical delivery that he's winning. His promises are vague, let alone
how he will accomplish them. As for surrounding himself with good people, he is already surrounded by the democratic establishment so we
can pretty much expect business as usual, which is a bit better than business as usual from the Republicans. My main concern is not so
much what he will do in office as it is if he can actually get elected. I think the Republicans are packing a secret knock out punch and
just waiting for the right time to deliver it.

Also agree.
If the Republicans had a viable moderate candidate, he could be beaten. However, that will probably not be the case.

[missminni]

Also agree.
If the Republicans had a viable moderate candidate, he could be beaten. However, that will probably not be the case.

The polls I just saw on CNN have McCain beating Obama and/or Hillary by a decent margin in Texas right now, at the height of Obamamania. The margin for him beating Obama is only 2% less than for Hillary. It seems that white men feel disenfranchised and they are
favoring McCain. Even Democrats. I shudder to think of the attacks the Republicans will launch once Obama actually has the nomination. Remember how they did Clinton? They did it to him through out his presidency too (and he still managed to have us prosper). I don't know if Obama can weather the storm.

[missminni]

Just watched the debate and believe it or not, I have had a change of heart.
Hillary's universal health care freaked me out. Mandated health insurance or your fined? What? I think not.
This is toooo much government for me. I don't have health insurance because I rarely
go to doctors, rarely use medicine, and when I do, I can pay for it myself. I think Health Insurance is one of the biggest scams going contributing
to inflated hospital costs, unnecessary pharmaceuticals prescribed arbitrarily and often unnecessary surgeries. Uh Uh.
That should be a persons choice, not a legal requirement. Obama's health care program was much more palatable. Yes, there should be
affordable health care available for those who want it. Not legally required for those who don't. I thought Hillary did alright in the
debate, but that one point stuck like a fish bone in my throat. I couldn't get past it. Obama, on the other hand, making that distinction
about health care, made me reconsider my position.