What are the Key Factors for Victory in the 2008 Presidential Election?

[LowlyPion]

Yeah, why don't they allow more access to McCain's silver-tongued brother?

McCain's brother has been in the news on other occasions recently.

Joe McCain, speaking at an event in early October in support of his brother, called two Democratic-leaning areas in Northern Virginia "communist country."

"I've lived here for at least 10 years and before that about every third duty I was in either Arlington or Alexandria, up in communist country," the younger McCain, a Navy veteran, said at an event in Loudoun County, Va. Joe McCain then apologized, but the remark reportedly drew laughter at the event.

About a week later, the candidate's brother sent an e-mail blasting the campaign's "counter-productive" strategy.

"Let John McCain be John McCain," Joe McCain wrote in the e-mail. "Make ads that show John not as crank and curmudgeon but as a great leader for his time."

McCain's brother was sharply critical of unidentified top campaign officials who "so tightly 'control the message'" that they are preventing reporters from speaking with those, like himself, who know the candidate best.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRWsUk14Wl7f42nDYetTT8-6PR3wD941DD0G1

 

[LowlyPion]

Interesting article on Unbuckling the Bible Belt and the schisms in Southern Christianity that may fracture the Republican Party:

Perhaps the heaviest burden of slavery that still holds down the section, though, is the yoke of a distorted biblical literalism that selectively emphasizes certain passages of what Christians refer to as the Old Testament while ignoring almost all of the teachings of Jesus.

The Jesus Thieves of this brand of "Christianity" preach from a 'Holey' Bible that cuts out all of the central teachings of Jesus, those difficult injunctions to turn the other cheek, help the poor, and love enemies.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/10/unbuckling_the_bible_belt_from.html

 

[LowlyPion]

Barry Goldwater's Granddaughter endorses Obama.

WASHINGTON - The list of famous-name Republicans lining up behind Barack Obama grew a little longer on Thursday.

A granddaughter of a conservative Republican icon, the late Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, CC Goldwater, announced that she would not be voting for her state’s senator, John McCain, on Nov. 4.

Goldwater says she and her sibling — and a few cousins — are casting their lot with Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. And Goldwater says it’s a no-brainer.

“We believe strongly in what our grandfather stood for: honesty, integrity, and personal freedom, free from political maneuvering and fear tactics,” Goldwater said in a blog on The Huffington Post.

“Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician,” the granddaughter wrote.

“Nothing about the Republican ticket offers the hope America needs to regain it’s standing in the world. That’s why we’re going to support Barack Obama,” she said.

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/10/23/more-gop-defections/

 

[Astronuc]

Obama Victory Chatter Is Growing, Even at a Conservative Think Tank
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...rowing-even-at-a-conservative-think-tank.html
One analyst puts the odds at 85 percent that the Illinois senator will win the presidency
By Katherine Skiba
Posted October 23, 2008

While the last two presidential elections have been nail-biters, there's growing chatter even at a conservative think tank inside the beltway that this one is virtually decided—and Barack Obama will end up the winner.

"We're past the 85 percent mark in terms of the likelihood of an Obama victory," Norman Ornstein said today. The noted political analyst spoke during an election preview event at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank where he is a resident scholar.

He sounded a mild cautionary note, saying no matter what polling suggests. "Things can change and stuff happens and the potential exists for a dramatic event," Ornstein said. "But it's just hard to imagine a terrain more tilted in one direction than the one we have now."

Ornstein travels frequently—he was in Miami on Wednesday—and said anecdotal evidence in Florida and a host of other states show "absolutely striking" differences between the Obama and McCain organizations, including the critical area of early and absentee voting. He said, too, that it is "just astonishing" to see how much Democrats are outraising and outspending Republicans during this go-around at all levels.
. . . .

The way Palin and McCain are going in separate directions, and the number of republicans are endorsing Obama, I expect Obama will be elected president in 10 days.

 

[LowlyPion]

An interesting inside look at the McCain Campaign from the NY Times Magazine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26mccain-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

 

[LowlyPion]

Attempted mugging of Joe Biden by News Anchor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxT0ELP7az0

You'd think she was getting her material from Cindy McCain.

 

[phoenixy]

Could McCain lose his home state?

McCain leads Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the Grand Canyon State, 48 percent to 44 percent.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14942.html

Latest poll, 600 samples, likely voter model.

 

[Art]

You'd think she was getting her material from Cindy McCain.

Biden did well in his replies I thought.

 

[LowlyPion]

Biden did well in his replies I thought.

He certainly sounded better than any George Bush Press conference.

Now I realize that's not a high bar to clear, but as to being able to govern at least he could step in.

Palin on the other hand if she ever did hold a press conference would likely make the country nostalgic for Bush's insightful prose.

 

[turbo]

Watch the video of Meet the Press, and watch McCain's answer when he was asked to respond to Rush Limbaugh's claim that Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama was racial. McCain had a perfect opportunity to put himself above race-baiting and really swat one out of the park by denouncing Limbaugh's statements. He did not do so.

McCain is so diminished by his lust for power that Gollum looks like a paragon of self-control in comparison.

 

[LowlyPion]

Watch the video of Meet the Press, and watch McCain's answer when he was asked to respond to Rush Limbaugh's claim that Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama was racial. McCain had a perfect opportunity to put himself above race-baiting and really swat one out of the park by denouncing Limbaugh's statements. He did not do so.

McCain is so diminished by his lust for power that Gollum looks like a paragon of self-control in comparison.

His inability to remember George Schultz when he tried to offer up the 5 Secretaries of State that are supposed to be endorsing him was also apparently a monument to his growing senility too.

 

[LowlyPion]

Watch the video of Meet the Press,...

He did himself no favors with that appearance.

He merely reinforced what everyone already knows ... that he is out of touch in his lame attempts to ignore the polls, in his blind defense of the vapid and incompetent VP choice of Palin, in the growth of his senility, in his inability to admit mistakes, and his dismissal of the legions of once loyal supporters that have decided against his candidacy on its merits.

Sadly it looks like the only friend he really has at this point is George Bush, the man that once savaged him with negative false advertising and robocalls in his own self serving ascent to power.

 

[Astronuc]

An interesting inside look at the McCain Campaign from the NY Times Magazine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26mccain-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

This is a great article with respect to the evolution of McCain's campaign, and the input of the different people and how they have shaped the candidate and campaign. I see McCain getting pulled and tugged, probably not in directions that he would himself want to go - hence the appearance of being erratic.

It covers the campaign suspension (which wasn't really) when the first Paulson rescue plan was announced, and the selection of Palin.


There is an interesting paragraph which concerns me not about McCain, but about Obama.

But to McCain, that Obama failed to do so carries a deeper significance. Authenticity means everything to a man like McCain who, says Salter, “has an affinity for heroes, for men of honor.” Conversely, he reserves special contempt for those he regards as arrogant phonies. A year after Barack Obama was sworn into the Senate, Salter recalls McCain saying, “He’s got a future, I’ll reach out to him” — as McCain had to Russ Feingold and John Edwards, and as the liberal Arizona congressman Mo Udall had reached out to McCain as a freshman. McCain invited Obama to attend a bipartisan meeting on ethics reform. Obama gratefully accepted —but then wrote McCain a letter urging him to instead follow a legislative path recommended by Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate. Feeling double-crossed, McCain ordered Salter to “send him a letter, brush him back a little.” Since that experience, says a Republican who has known McCain for a long time, “there was certainly disdain and dislike of Obama.”

If Obama accepted McCain's invitation, then it seems inappropriate to then revoke a promise (agreement) in favor of a more partisan approach. I'd like to know more about that and Reid's approach as opposed to McCain bipartisan approach.

A main concern here is whether or not there will be sufficient independence between Obama and the congressional leaders, Reid and Pelosi. IMO, there was insufficient independence between the Bush administration and the congressional leaders: Lott, Frist, Hastert, DeLay, and that has allowed for the irresponsible fiscal mismanagement of the US government, lack of appropriate regulation, particularly of the financial industry, and a failed foreign policy, including the faulty war in Iraq.

 

[LowlyPion]

A main concern here is whether or not there will be sufficient independence between Obama and the congressional leaders, Reid and Pelosi.

My thinking is that Obama will be the one with the mandate in the aftermath of this election. And I think he is at this point his own man. While these other leaders in Congress have been supportive, they will have more pressure now to accede to Obama than he will to accede to them. And whatever majority they may enjoy will in large part be as a result of his coattails.

 

[Astronuc]

My thinking is that Obama will be the one with the mandate in the aftermath of this election. And I think he is at this point his own man. While these other leaders in Congress have been supportive, they will have more pressure now to accede to Obama than he will to accede to them. And whatever majority they may enjoy will in large part be as a result of his coattails.

I hope so. I'm waiting for the evidence. My concern was about the deference Obama showed Reid, but perhaps that was expected since Obama was a freshman junior senator and Reid was/is the majority leader.

I have the same reservation about Obama and McCain. The president needs to be independent from congress. Congress (the legislative branch) and the executive branch are supposed serve as checks and balances against each other, and the supreme court should be in independent check on those two. Frankly, I don't see sufficient impartiality or indepenced among the three institutions.

There is way too much at stake - more so now than any time in the last two decades, and perhaps since World War II.

 

[turbo]

The president needs to be independent from congress. Congress (the legislative branch) and the executive branch are supposed serve as checks and balances against each other, and the supreme court should be in independent check on those two. Frankly, I don't see sufficient impartiality or indepenced among the three institutions.

There is way too much at stake - more so now than any time in the last two decades, and perhaps since World War II.

Bush has been FAR too independent of Congress, refusing to administer laws as enacted, and violating others blithely. A Democratic Congress can and should serve as a check on a Democratic administration, even if they didn't have the guts to stand up to Bush/Cheney.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is an interesting paragraph which concerns me not about McCain, but about Obama.

I read those letters a few months ago and was concerned too. I put some of that down to Obama being a newbie, trying to suck up to the bigshots in his party.

The letters: http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_obama_and_sen_mccain_exchange_letters_on_ethics_reform/

 

[Astronuc]

Bush has been FAR too independent of Congress, refusing to administer laws as enacted, and violating others blithely. A Democratic Congress can and should serve as a check on a Democratic administration, even if they didn't have the guts to stand up to Bush/Cheney.

Well in that sense yes. But Bush and congress tacitly ignored their mutual obligation to check the other, and in that sense were quite mutually dependent.

 

[LowlyPion]

I hope so. I'm waiting for the evidence. My concern was about the deference Obama showed Reid, but perhaps that was expected since Obama was a freshman junior senator and Reid was/is the majority leader.

That's my reading of the situation. And I think he was right to an extent to be careful about being co-opted by McCain - a potential candidate for President at the time. What if Obama had joined with McCain and appeared as a follower at that point?

I think McCain suffers from grappling with literalism and chooses to believe his own narcissistic fantasies. Look for instance at this notion that Obama agreed to town hall debates and all Obama said was that

he found the notion “appealing” but then did little to make it happen.

Not exactly a betrayal, but McCain chooses to take it as one insofar as he goes on to opine that Obama has no honor. Unfortunately it is McCain that chose to think that the politician's answer "that's appealing" or that's interesting ... let's study it" rather than be pinned to an agenda not of his making - answers that I have seen him give over this campaign cycle I might add - somehow rises to the level of betrayal as opposed to prudence in making informed and considered choices.

Clinton - in his best moments - and his worst - was gifted in speaking such that both sides of an issue thought that he supported their view - in believing what they want to believe. Apparently McCain after all his years in Congress chooses to play the innocent when it comes to the ways of Washington.

 

[Astronuc]

I read those letters a few months ago and was concerned too. I put some of that down to Obama being a newbie, trying to suck up to the bigshots in his party.

The letters: http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_obama_and_sen_mccain_exchange_letters_on_ethics_reform/

IMO, Obama is sticking with the process, and IMO the process isn't working the way it should - hence the crisis in which we find ourselves.

Obviously, we don't know Obama's thinking or that of anyone else in Washington, but we can look at what has happened and what is happening, and wonder.

It would have been worthwhile to step outside the system and process and do something different - like a bipartisan meeting - in order to review S. 2180, the Honest Leadership Act, and see if it really addressed the issue at hand.


I'm currently reading Woodward's, The War Within, a narrative about the secret Whitehouse history from 2006-2008 (with a lot of relection to 2003-2006). In 2006, Secretary of State Rice and NS Advisor Stephen Hadley initiated an independent review of the strategy in Iraq. Simultaneously, Gen. Peter Pace and the JCS initiated a separate independent review through a multi-branch 'Council of Colonels'. Both reviews were done without the knowledge of DOD Sec Rumsfeld, who surely would have opposed both. It's unfortunate that such reviews or independent assessments had not been done 3 or 4 years earlier. That is how the government should function.

The fact that one person, Rumsfled, obstructed the functional process is appalling.

The whole point of the Constitution is a functioning government - not the dysfunctional mess that we now have!

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton - in his best moments - and his worst - was gifted in speaking such that both sides of an issue thought that he supported their view - in believing what they want to believe. Apparently McCain after all his years in Congress chooses to play the innocent when it comes to the ways of Washington.

I have a problem with duplicity - which seemed to be a characteristic of Clinton.

I can see two sides of a conflict or issue, but I would not want to mislead either side that I simultaneously agree with their side and not the other.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

MR. TODD: You know, you look at these early voting numbers. Georgia's one of these states, along with North Carolina and Florida, that we're seeing early voting, and because they're states that have to keep track of these statistics, we know exactly how many African-American ballots are being turned in, how many Dem--and it is through the roof. There are--turnout among African-Americans might actually be somewhere between 95 and 100 percent in some of these places, in some of these states. And, in fact, we're seeing this shrinkage of a lead in Georgia for Senator McCain. It's actually got some folks wondering is South Carolina now in single digits? What's going on in Mississippi that this prediction of big African-American turnout that everybody thought might happen, we're seeing play out so far in some of these early voting states.[continued]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27388251/page/5/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the entire SE sector is in play. Look at the map of black demographics posted earlier.

Does anyone know the typical turnout for eligible black voters? I think it is something like 30%.

Hah!

 

[LowlyPion]

McCain looks lost on "Meet the Press"

If John McCain was hoping to counteract Colin Powell's stunning Barack Obama endorsement by doing "Meet the Press" a week later, I'm sure he's disappointed. McCain seemed lost and not entirely convinced of his own arguments in an uninspiring sit-down with host Tom Brokaw.

The worst moment, of course, was when he boasted of having the support of five former secretaries of state, but couldn't remember all of them. He left out George Shultz, then interrupted Brokaw in the middle of his next question to give Shultz a shout-out. He told Brokaw "the enthusiasm at almost all of our [events] is at a higher level than I've ever seen," a day after Obama drew 32 times as many people as McCain to an Albuquerque, N.M., rally, according to the Politico.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/10/26/mccain_mtp/

 

[LowlyPion]

I have a problem with duplicity - which seemed to be a characteristic of Clinton.

I can see two sides of a conflict or issue, but I would not want to mislead either side that I simultaneously agree with their side and not the other.

I suppose you can view it as duplicity, but I also think that being sufficiently fuzzy in negotiations between competing interests allows for the opportunity for both sides to find common footing in what may otherwise be a swamp. Adopting hardened positions with literal language offers less subsequent chance to soften and move to a solution. I believe that Clinton had those skills, that he also used to his detriment when it came to his own personal situation.

 

[LowlyPion]

A picture is worth a 100,000 votes ... in Denver.

 

[LowlyPion]

Et tu Lieberman?
Lieberman preparing for a soft landing of his own?

October 26, 2008

LIEBERMAN HASN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO HIMSELF... Joe Lieberman adopted the role of Republican attack dog early on, but as the election draws near, he's hoping the political world has a very short memory.

Lieberman, a self-proclaimed "independent Democrat" who was chosen by McCain to make the case against Obama at the Republican National Convention in early September, said his comments have been within bounds.

"When I go out, I say, 'I have a lot of respect for Sen. Obama. He's bright. He's eloquent.'"

My hunch is, Lieberman sees the direction of the political winds, and hopes to convince Democrats that while he's been a McCain sycophant, he's always been "respectful" towards Obama.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015376.php

 

[Astronuc]

I suppose you can view it as duplicity, but I also think that being sufficiently fuzzy in negotiations between competing interests allows for the opportunity for both sides to find common footing in what may otherwise be a swamp. Adopting hardened positions with literal language offers less subsequent chance to soften and move to a solution. I believe that Clinton had those skills, that he also used to his detriment when it came to his own personal situation.

Clinton's domestic policy was poor and his foreign policy worse, only to be superceded by Bush's poor performance. Clinton was mostly indolent, and Bush was just plain reckless and negligent.


In the meantime - Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's largest daily newspaper, endorses Obama.

Obama for president
http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/567867.html
Palin's rise captivates us but nation needs a steady hand

. . .
Sen. McCain describes himself as a maverick, by which he seems to mean that he spent 25 years trying unsuccessfully to persuade his own party to follow his bipartisan, centrist lead. Sadly, maverick John McCain didn't show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years.

It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington. You need look no further than the guilt-by-association lies and sound-bite distortions of the degenerating McCain campaign to see how readily he embraces the divisive, fear-mongering tactics of Karl Rove. And while Sen. McCain points to the fragile success of the troop surge in stabilizing conditions in Iraq, it is also plain that he was fundamentally wrong about the more crucial early decisions. Contrary to his assurances, we were not greeted as liberators; it was not a short, easy war; and Americans -- not Iraqi oil -- have had to pay for it. It was Sen. Obama who more clearly saw the danger ahead.
. . .

 

[LowlyPion]

Clinton's domestic policy was poor and his foreign policy worse, only to be superceded by Bush's poor performance. Clinton was mostly indolent, and Bush was just plain reckless and negligent.

I don't quite see that as the case. I rather think Clinton was domestically capable and presided over an efficient fiscally responsible expansion in the economy.

Internationally I don't see that he was called upon by circumstance to have dealt with all that much. He certainly wasn't inclined to be so adventurously stupid as Bush has turned out to be. Now we have 8 years of domestic and foreign squandering to unwind ourselves from. 16 years of Clinton couldn't have been nearly so bad. But that is for another thread.

Insofar as the Clinton of today, I think his appearances with Obama in Florida will likely do some to sway the state and demonstrate generally the universal opposition to McCain by all but perhaps his family at this point.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't quite see that as the case. I rather think Clinton was domestically capable and presided over an efficient fiscally responsible expansion in the economy.

Clinton was a beneficiary of the 'irrational exhuberance', and it was during that period that Enron and WorldCom did their shenanigans only to collapse early in the Bush administration. Clinton did nothing for energy independence. He also benefitted from low oil prices.

Internationally I don't see that he was called upon by circumstance to have dealt with all that much.

Someone characterized his policy with respect to the Balkans, particularly Bosna-Herzagovna and Kosova as suffering from his indolence, his policy with respect to Russia was poor, and he didn't do a good job with respect of Afghanistan/Pakistan, or the ME in general.

 

[Astronuc]

McCain in Meet the Press

McCain says Bush failed in number of areas
Dismissing poll results, GOP candidate insists ‘we’re doing fine’ - and the economy is fundamentally strong

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27386775/

WATERLOO, Iowa - Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, said Sunday that he was a proud Republican but believed the Bush administration had failed in a number of areas, asking voters to remember that “I’m not George Bush.”

In recent days, the McCain campaign has aggressively run away from Bush and his unpopularity with voters, blaming him for the economic downturn and a record national debt. In an interview with NBC News last week, McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, identified Bush’s unpopularity as the campaign’s most serious obstacle.

Speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” McCain acknowledged that he has voted with Bush more than 90 percent of the time, but he said that on the most important issues — U.S. strategies in Iraq, climate change and the economy — “I was not popular in my own party.”
. . . .

It's really disingenuous for congresspersons to be pointing fingers at Bush. Congress passes the bills, which the president signs. Congress passes the budget and writes the tax laws, which Bush approves. Congress authorized Bush to use military force in Iraq. Congress repeatedly failed to check the president. Last time I looked - it's a too party system - and both parties failed.

“She’s a role model for millions and millions of Americans,” said McCain, who reacted sharply when Brokaw noted that he had spent much of his time “defending” Palin.

Maybe after this is over - McCain will come back to reality. Then again - that's a long shot.

 

[turbo]

Generally, citizens of the US hate congress in general and like their own congressional representatives. Rove et al know this, and they knew that they could leverage this. Vote for Bush's war - you're a patriot. Vote against it - you're soft on terrorism. Rove should has brought McCarthyism to the 21st century and has done it much more successfully than Tail-Gunner Joe ever hoped.

 

[LowlyPion]

The New York Times Editorial Board Endorsement of Obama - a pretty thorough excoriation of both McCain and Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

 

[Astronuc]

I wished Brokaw has asked McCain what he was planning to do after the election.


The earmarks are a small part of the budget, so eliminating them will have little impact. Nevertheless, they should be eliminated.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/favorfactory_2008/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003948586_favorfactory14m.html

 

[turbo]

I wished Brokaw has asked McCain what he was planning to do after the election.

I wish that Brokaw had pressed McCain about his opinion regarding Limbaugh's assertion that Powell's endorsement of Obama was racially-motivated. McCain stiffed him, apparently in an attempt to hold onto the racist vote, and Brokaw let him off the hook. McCain could have helped himself with independents, moderate Republicans, and some older or more conservative Democrats by repudiating Limbaugh's poison, but he did not do so. With a little over a week to go to election day, Brokaw lobbed him a slow, straight, soft-ball, and McCain whiffed. McCain does not have the intelligence nor the temperament to be president - even his much-vaunted political acumen has left him.

Earlier, Brokaw also led into a question with a fawning wet-your-pants description of McCain's war service and gave him a beauty-pageant question on a par with "what have you taken away from this experience?" so McCain could fluff himself up. Are there any journalists left alive? Even Tim Russert could have done better and he was a milquetoast at best.