How Obama Fell to Earth

[GaryC 7]

How Obama Fell to Earth

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: April 18, 2008

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.

When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.

General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.

A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.

Welcome to 2008. Everybody’s miserable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18brooks.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Let's see them numbers once there is one Democrat and one Republican out there competing for the job. Right now, McSame is getting a free ride. But that free ride is coming to an end. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

[GaryC 7]

Well, I wasn't going to post it but it shows Obama has some real problems with people he would normally have a lock on. True, it's early but the fact that he is having problems with these groups shows his vulnerability.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Thursday, April 17, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows John McCain leading Barack Obama, 47% to 43%. The presumptive Republican nominee also leads Hillary Clinton 49% to 41%.

In a match-up against Clinton, the former First Lady attracts support from 14% of Republican women. However, McCain earns the vote from 25% of Democratic men. With Obama as the nominee, 14% of Republican women say they’d vote for the Democrat. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Democratic men would vote for the GOP hopeful. Overall, McCain leads both Democrats by double digits among men and is competitive among women.

McCain is viewed favorably by 55% and unfavorably by 43%. Obama’s ratings are 48% favorable and 50% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 42% favorable, 56% unfavorable (see recent daily favorable ratings).

There is no significant gender gap in perceptions of John McCain. He earns favorable reviews from 56% of men and 54% of women. For Obama, there is a six-point gap—he is viewed favorably by 45% of men and 51% of women. For Clinton, the gender gap is huge. Only 33% of men have a favorable opinion of her along with 48% of women.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, I wasn't going to post it but it shows Obama has some real problems with people he would normally have a lock on. True, it's early but the fact that he is having problems with these groups shows his vulnerability.

If Obama fails to gain traction against McCain once he actually gets to campaign against him, then I'll start to worry. We all know that it's a long road to November. So much can happen between now and then that it's really useless to look at polls right this moment. Remember, Hillary was the inevitable nominee and McCain's campaign was all but done just a few months ago.

ETA: What I am saying is that neither candidate will have a cake walk to the White House.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Well, I wasn't going to post it but it shows Obama has some real problems with people he would normally have a lock on. True, it's early but the fact that he is having problems with these groups shows his vulnerability.

If Obama fails to gain traction against McCain once he actually gets to campaign against him, then I'll start to worry. We all know that it's a long road to November. So much can happen between now and then that it's really useless to look at polls right this moment. Remember, Hillary was the inevitable nominee and McCain's campaign was all but done just a few months ago.

If Dean can't get the superdelegates to end this thing in June I don't see how Obama can recover. They have already created a huge mess for themselves. If it goes all the way to the convention without a clear winner it's over for Obama. The one good thing I can see for your side is Hillary will be out of the consideration in any future presidential elections. She really has screwed up her support for a large portion of the dem electorate.

[SaadBell 0]

John McCain —has been well-documented — is talking all the time about being a reformer and a maverick, and in fact, he has taken thousands of dollars from corporations, ridden on their corporate jets, and then turned around and tried to do favors for them and get projects approved. He has tons of lobbyists on his staff. This is a guy who is very close to the lobbyist community, a guy who has been documented again and again by taking contributions and then doing favors for it. This is not a guy who is a reformer. This is a guy who has been in Washington for 25 years and wants to give us four more years of the same, and I don’t think we need that.

[GaryC 7]

John McCain —has been well-documented — is talking all the time about being a reformer and a maverick, and in fact, he has taken thousands of dollars from corporations, ridden on their corporate jets, and then turned around and tried to do favors for them and get projects approved. He has tons of lobbyists on his staff. This is a guy who is very close to the lobbyist community, a guy who has been documented again and again by taking contributions and then doing favors for it. This is not a guy who is a reformer. This is a guy who has been in Washington for 25 years and wants to give us four more years of the same, and I don’t think we need that.

Obama, Edwards, and the Lobbying Industry

Obama and Edwards refuse to take money from federal lobbyists.

"We continue to build the largest grassroots movement in history, but Washington lobbyists and special interests rallied to help Hillary Clinton out-raise us for the first time."

--Barack Obama, letter to supporters, October 16, 2007

"The first thing we have to do is cut off special interests' ability to influence campaigns with their money, and increase the power of regular people."

--John Edwards, in New Hampshire, October 13, 2007.

Both Barack Obama and John Edwards have fulminated against "lobbyists" and "insiders," and claimed that they will end "business as usual" in Washington if elected president. But the latest quarterly campaign finance reports show that both candidates continue to receive large sums of money from donors employed by powerful "special interests," including trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, and hedge funds.

Do we detect a little hypocrisy here?

The Facts

Exhibit A in the drive by both Obama and Edwards to "clean up" Washington is their refusal to accept "a dime" from "Washington lobbyists." It distinguishes them clearly from their chief Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, who has raked in more than $500,000 from the lobbying industry this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (website is opensecrets.org) But it turns out that both Edwards and Obama have adopted a narrow definition of the word lobbyist, which raises questions about the effectiveness of their campaign.

# They still take money from state lobbyists.

# They make no attempt to distinguish between lobbyists for big corporations and lobbyists for small non-profits. They treat a lobbyist for Haliburton in the same way as a lobbyist for child poverty or cancer research.

# They accept money from former lobbyists and future lobbyists.

# As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.)

# They have no problem about taking money from people representing other "special interests," e.g. trial lawyers and the hedge fund industry.

So far this year, according to Opensecrets.org, Edwards has taken more than $8 million from lawyers and law firms, some of whom employ the federally-registered lobbyists whose lucre he refuses to touch. Obama is not far behind: $7.5 million. (Clinton has taken $9.2 million.)

Obama has emphasized that he does not take money from PhRMA, the powerful lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, he does not seem to mind taking money from senior employees of PhRMA members, such as Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Campaign finance records show that he has raised about $250,000 in pharmaceutical-related contributions this year. (Clinton collected $269,000.) He has also not been averse to helping out Illinois-based pharmaceutical companies with "tariff suspensions."

Nor does refusing to accept money from federal lobbyists prevent the Obama and Edwards campaigns from accepting in-kind contributions from registered lobbyists in the form of volunteer work. See this Roll Call article. My colleague, Matt Mosk, recently reported that the Obama campaign is hiring a top lobbyist, Moses Mercado, as a senior adviser. Mercado's accounts with the Ogilvy Government Relations lobbyist group included Pfizer, United Health Group, and the Blackstone Group, which paid millions of dollars to Ogilvy to defeat proposals for doubling taxes paid by private equity managers. Mercado has said he will take a "leave of absence" from Ogilvy in order to work for Obama.

In the meantime, the Obama campaign returned a $250 contribution from a small-time federal lobbyist named Gigi Sohn, who works for a non-profit organization called Public Knowledge that advocates digital consumer rights. Sohn has, however, been permitted to help the campaign as a volunteer. In an interview with Roll Call, Sohn described Obama's position on lobbyists as "absurd." She said that the loopholes in the anti-lobbyist campaign were "big enough to drive a truck through."

A spokesman for Obama, Ben LaBott, said that "neither Mercado, nor any registered federal lobbyist, is a staff member of the Obama campaign." He declined to say whether Mercado would join the campaign at at later date or is an unpaid adviser. He said that the ban on accepting money from federal lobbyists was not "a perfect solution to the problem [of money in politics], and it isn't even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates."

A spokesman for Edwards, Eric Schultz, said that there was a "clear distinction" between refusing to take money from lobbyists and taking money from the people who employ them. "Either you lobby the federal government or you don't. Either you are paid to influence legislation and the people who write it or you're not. The line is clear and only murky for those who are trying to blur it."

Obama gets points for acknowledging that the line he is attempting to draw is a vague one, and that all presidential candidates are tainted by their frantic efforts to raise money. "The argument is not that I'm pristine, because I'm swimming in the same muddy water [as the other candidates]," he told reporters in Iowa, back in August. "The argument is that I know it's muddy and I want to clean it up."

The Pinocchio Test

We have to admit to feeling a little ambivalent on this one. Our truth-squadding colleagues at Politifact had no compunction about awarding the Edwards campaign a "half true" rating for the claim that he had "never taken" the money of Washington lobbyists. As far as we can establish (and we have only examined the present election cycle), neither Edwards nor Obama have knowingly accepted campaign contributions from federally registered lobbyists, so that claim is technically correct.

On the other hand, their grandiose campaign language seems to promise more than it actually delivers. There are an awful lot of loopholes. Let's hear what you think. Are Obama and Edwards making a good faith effort to reduce the influence of money in politics, or are they playing with words and legalistic definitions? We will excerpt the most thoughtful contributions in a future post. We would particularly like to hear from that much maligned breed: "Washington lobbyists"? Are you as evil as they say you are? E-mails only, please. No cheques or envelopes.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checke...e_lobbying.html

[GaryC 7]

Obama’s Refusal of Lobbyists’ Money Has its Limits

by Dan Morain

WASHINGTON - While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital.Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from “federal lobbyists.” His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.

0422 03But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.

“Clearly, the distinction is not that significant,” said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

“He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different,” Weissman said. “But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.”

A relative newcomer to national politics, Obama stunned the political world by raising $25.7 million in the first three months of the year, all but matching money raised by his main rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Obama attained the lofty mark even as he decried the fundraising system. In his Internet appeals for small donations, Obama played up populist themes of reform.

“It may sound strange for a presidential candidate to launch a fundraising drive that isn’t about dollars. But our democracy shouldn’t be about money, and it’s time our campaigns weren’t either,” he said in one such pitch.

In another e-mail seeking money, Obama decried the “special interest industry in Washington” and warned it would spend more money than ever to “try to own our political process.”

“We’re not going to play that game,” the e-mail said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Obama instituted the ban on lobbyist money in reaction to public anger over the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Burton also acknowledged the policy has its flaws.

“This ban is part of Obama’s best effort to address the problem of money in politics,” Burton said in a statement. “It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem and it isn’t even a perfect symbol. But it does reflect that Obama shares the urgency of the American people to change the way Washington operates.”

Obama said in his first-quarter financial report that he received money from 104,000 donors, twice as many as Clinton, suggesting a disproportionate number of small contributions. But the Campaign Finance Institute said Obama still received 68% of his money from donations of $1,000 or more, compared with 86% for Clinton.

Rules for lobbyists

Lobbyists generally are paid by corporations, unions and other interest groups to shape public policy by making regular contact with government officials. They must register with both houses of Congress, and make public disclosures identifying their clients and the amounts they are paid.

Some of the most influential players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama’s ban does not cover such individuals.

For example, partners from the Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird donated $33,000 to Obama in the first 90 days of 2007.

Alston & Bird has a large lobbying division in Washington. It billed its clients nearly $3.9 million in 2006, ranking 35th among Washington lobbyists. Alston boasts on its website that it offers clients “unique experience with how policy is made” and knows “the people who make it: government and agency officials; members of Congress and their staff.”

Obama kept $2,300 donated by Alston’s Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader. Daschle, located in Washington, is neither a lawyer nor a lobbyist. He is a consultant.

According to Alston’s website, Daschle advises “clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy with a particular emphasis on issues related to financial services, health care, energy, telecommunications and taxes.”

Daschle did not return phone calls.

While refusing money directly from federal lobbyists, who get their income from clients, Obama takes money from those clients. In the first quarter of 2007, he accepted a combined $170,000 from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, two financial services giants that have numerous issues pending in Washington and spent a total of $4.6 million on lobbying in 2006.

Power provider’s largess

Obama’s biggest single source of corporate money - $160,000 - came from executives at Exelon Corp., the nation’s largest nuclear power provider, and its subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, an Illinois utility.

Exelon spent $500,000 to influence policy in Washington last year. Although Obama took no money from Exelon’s Washington lobbyists, he accepted $1,000 checks from lobbyists John P. Novak and James Monk of Springfield. In Springfield, Novak represents Exelon., and Monk is president of the Illinois Energy Assn., a trade group that represents Commonwealth Edison.

Monk and Novak said they do not lobby in Washington. But their clients care about federal issues, including where to store nuclear waste and what restrictions to place on coal-fired plants.

“I’m not going to second-guess his policy,” Novak said. “I think it is appropriate for me to support a presidential candidate from Illinois.”

Lobbyists from other states also gave Obama money. In California, Obama accepted $2,300 from a partner whose lobbying firm represents AT&T, United Airlines and the Recording Industry Assn. of America in Sacramento.

In Tallahassee, Obama held a fundraiser attended by several statehouse lobbyists, taking checks from lobbyists for trial attorneys, the insurance industry, fast-food chains and sugar cane growers. State and federal issues often are related, as noted by the law firm Akerman Senterfitt, whose Florida-based members donated $7,000 to Obama. On its website, Akerman notes it combines Tallahassee connections with “an involved federal political action committee” to provide its clients “with an enviable level of access.”

“If you cannot be completely pure, is it worth it to be partially pure? That seems to be debatable,” said political scientist Bruce Cain, director of the University of California Washington Center, based in the nation’s capital.

“We cannot say his policy is completely meaningless,” Cain said. “But it doesn’t insulate him from interests.”

On May 2, Obama is scheduled to attend a $2,300-per-ticket breakfast 10 blocks from the Capitol. The hosts include 22 lawyers. Although they are not federal lobbyists, three in the past have been registered lobbyists; they all work at firms that have Washington lobbying operations or hire outside lobbying firms to contact lawmakers.

Lobbyists at the law firms where the lawyers work billed lobbying clients a combined $19 million in 2006, according to PoliticalMoneyLine. Clients include defense contractors, energy producers, healthcare interests, pharmaceutical manufacturers and tobacco companies.

One lawyer co-hosting the Obama event has represented companies fending off litigation over toxic waste cleanup, and another represents employers on affirmative action requirements, force reduction and early retirement programs, their firms’ websites say.

Attorney Robert Sussman, one of the organizers, said in an interview that he was a registered lobbyist until recently, when he decided to help Obama raise money. So that he might do so, he said, the campaign requested that he drop his registration.

“This is a policy that they felt would be consistent with their values and their beliefs. I take no position on the wisdom,” Sussman said. “I decided whatever small inconvenience that was created [by ceasing lobbying] was more than outweighed by helping the candidate.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, I wasn't going to post it but it shows Obama has some real problems with people he would normally have a lock on. True, it's early but the fact that he is having problems with these groups shows his vulnerability.

If Obama fails to gain traction against McCain once he actually gets to campaign against him, then I'll start to worry. We all know that it's a long road to November. So much can happen between now and then that it's really useless to look at polls right this moment. Remember, Hillary was the inevitable nominee and McCain's campaign was all but done just a few months ago.

If Dean can't get the superdelegates to end this thing in June I don't see how Obama can recover. They have already created a huge mess for themselves. If it goes all the way to the convention without a clear winner it's over for Obama. The one good thing I can see for your side is Hillary will be out of the consideration in any future presidential elections. She really has screwed up her support for a large portion of the dem electorate.

I agree. The Dems need to unite behind their candidate no later than the days immediately following the last primaries - i.e. sometime during the week of June 2. If this nomination fight drags on uselessly any longer than that, they may as well not campaign for the November election at all. I'd actually much prefer to tally up and call it once PA, NC and IN are done by early May.

[SaadBell 0]

It's not too early to start thinking about why McCain would be an awful president:

•He is even more wrong about Iraq than the Bush administration, if that's possible. He thinks that because our troop escalation has coincided with a reduction in violence (down to levels that were considered catastrophic a few years ago, but now seem better by comparison), that somehow means that our presence is solving long term issues like power sharing between Shia and Sunni.

•OK, McCain is really smoking crack about Iraq. So much so that it deserves another bullet point. Remember that time McCain walked through the Baghdad marketplace, guarded by massive amounts of firepower and wearing a bulletproof vest, and then commented how one could "walk freely" in some parts of Baghdad? That is the level of reality denial he has about the situation. It's really scary.

•McCain took a good Beach Boys song and turned it into a joke about bombing Iran. The moral callousness of that aside, what does he think bombing Iran would actually accomplish? Wouldn't it just make them more determined to acquire nuclear weapons, and justify all the "Great Satan" rhetoric that the theocrats in that country use to justify their stranglehold on power? Is there any realistic scenario in which the strategic position of the United States would be better after a bombing Iran?

•McCain doesn't support a woman's right to control her own body.

•McCain gets endorsements from complete wingnut freakazoids like John Hagee (who thinks God deliberately killed all those people in New Orleans with a hurricane because of a gay pride parade). And McCain states that he's "very proud to have pastor Hagee's support." (Greenwald asks the relevant question: Why do blacks always have to distance themselves from the likes of Farrakhan, but whites can get support from the most batshit-crazy wackjobs and not suffer any credibility hits for it?)

•He's a Republican. He kisses Bush's ###. He might make some noise about dissenting so he can give the press an excuse to keep up with their mindless narrative of how independent he is. But in the end he knuckles under. Electing McCain would empower Republicans to continue all the hideous policies they've been foisting on us these

•Even on the issue of torture, which given McCain's horrific experiences as a POW you'd think he'd never waver on, when push comes to shove he won't vote for banning it completely.

•McCain caved to the xenophobic right-wingers on the issue of immigration reform. (Not that the corporatist Republican version was great, but it was better than the nativist Republican version.)

•McCain voted against SCHIP re-authorization. Indeed the Children's Defense Fund Action Council gave him the worst rating of all Senators.

•McCain's got a really bad temper.

That's just a few to get started. There will no doubt be more. McCain has a lot of undeserved positive media. Don't get sucked in. And his campaign and the Republican party are going to fling a lot of nasty mud at the Democratic nominee, whoever it turns out to be. We can't let the Republican nominee sail by on his favorable media coverage. McCain would be an awful president, and should be kept FAR AWAY from the White House.

[GaryC 7]

It's not too early to start thinking about why McCain would be an awful president:

•He is even more wrong about Iraq than the Bush administration, if that's possible. He thinks that because our troop escalation has coincided with a reduction in violence (down to levels that were considered catastrophic a few years ago, but now seem better by comparison), that somehow means that our presence is solving long term issues like power sharing between Shia and Sunni.

•OK, McCain is really smoking crack about Iraq. So much so that it deserves another bullet point. Remember that time McCain walked through the Baghdad marketplace, guarded by massive amounts of firepower and wearing a bulletproof vest, and then commented how one could "walk freely" in some parts of Baghdad? That is the level of reality denial he has about the situation. It's really scary.

•McCain took a good Beach Boys song and turned it into a joke about bombing Iran. The moral callousness of that aside, what does he think bombing Iran would actually accomplish? Wouldn't it just make them more determined to acquire nuclear weapons, and justify all the "Great Satan" rhetoric that the theocrats in that country use to justify their stranglehold on power? Is there any realistic scenario in which the strategic position of the United States would be better after a bombing Iran?

•McCain doesn't support a woman's right to control her own body.

•McCain gets endorsements from complete wingnut freakazoids like John Hagee (who thinks God deliberately killed all those people in New Orleans with a hurricane because of a gay pride parade). And McCain states that he's "very proud to have pastor Hagee's support." (Greenwald asks the relevant question: Why do blacks always have to distance themselves from the likes of Farrakhan, but whites can get support from the most batshit-crazy wackjobs and not suffer any credibility hits for it?)

•He's a Republican. He kisses Bush's ###. He might make some noise about dissenting so he can give the press an excuse to keep up with their mindless narrative of how independent he is. But in the end he knuckles under. Electing McCain would empower Republicans to continue all the hideous policies they've been foisting on us these

•Even on the issue of torture, which given McCain's horrific experiences as a POW you'd think he'd never waver on, when push comes to shove he won't vote for banning it completely.

•McCain caved to the xenophobic right-wingers on the issue of immigration reform. (Not that the corporatist Republican version was great, but it was better than the nativist Republican version.)

•McCain voted against SCHIP re-authorization. Indeed the Children's Defense Fund Action Council gave him the worst rating of all Senators.

•McCain's got a really bad temper.

That's just a few to get started. There will no doubt be more. McCain has a lot of undeserved positive media. Don't get sucked in. And his campaign and the Republican party are going to fling a lot of nasty mud at the Democratic nominee, whoever it turns out to be. We can't let the Republican nominee sail by on his favorable media coverage. McCain would be an awful president, and should be kept FAR AWAY from the White House.

Nice subject change. If your happy with half truths and word games from Obama then more power to you. Your little rant that you posted looks like it came straight from the dailykoss.

[SaadBell 0]

One question for you; you think America is in good shape? You think the war is on track? You a Bush supporter? You want another 4 years of the same #######? You must be very rich, maybe the top 1%, since that is the ones that benefit from this administration. I am not rich, served this country most of my life, and got screwed, so yes, we need a change, and McCain is not the person for the job. Period.

[GaryC 7]

One question for you; you think America is in good shape? You think the war is on track? You a Bush supporter? You want another 4 years of the same #######? You must be very rich, maybe the top 1%, since that is the ones that benefit from this administration. I am not rich, served this country most of my life, and got screwed, so yes, we need a change, and McCain is not the person for the job. Period.

Yes I think America is in good shape. We have problems that need addressed and I think McCain will do a better job of fixing those problems. The war was needed and it is finally getting better. It's something we can win and must win. I am by no means rich. I am dead center of the middle class. I have also served my country. I think Obama will drive this country into the ground and is the worst person for the job.