Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[flere-imsaho]

McCain Orders Shake-Up of His Campaign

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign has gone through its second shake-up in a year as Mr. McCain, responding to Republican concerns that his candidacy was faltering, put Steve Schmidt in charge of day-to-day operations and abandoned an effort to have the campaign run by 11 regional managers, the senator’s aides said Wednesday.

Mr. Schmidt is a veteran of President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign and he worked closely with Karl Rove, who was Mr. Bush’s political adviser. His installation at Mr. McCain’s headquarters sharply diminished the responsibilities of Rick Davis, who has been Mr. McCain’s campaign manager since the last shake-up nearly a year ago.

Mr. McCain’s advisers said that Mr. Davis would continue to hold the position of campaign manager, but that Mr. Schmidt had taken over every major operation where Mr. McCain has shown signs of struggling: communications, scheduling and basic political strategy.

The shift was approved by Mr. McCain after several aides, including Mr. Schmidt, warned him about 10 days ago that he was in danger of losing the presidential election unless he revamped his campaign operation, according to two officials close to the campaign.

Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Davis declined requests for comment.

In the first public reflection of Mr. Schmidt’s new role, the campaign is planning what will amount to a relaunch of Mr. McCain’s candidacy after July 4, with the senator touring the country to promote a jobs program and visiting battleground states like Colorado, Wisconsin and Michigan to illustrate the economic problems he will be talking about.

By contrast, in moves that drew widespread derision by Republicans and delighted Democrats, Mr. McCain recently delivered a speech on energy policy before an audience of oil executives in Houston and came out in favor of offshore drilling in a speech in Santa Barbara, Calif. In both cases, Mr. McCain’s aides said, he ended up delivering those speeches in those locations because he was there fund-raising.

As part of the shake-up, the McCain campaign is abandoning from what had been a big innovation by Mr. Davis, in which the campaign would largely be directed by 11 regional campaign managers who have been given power over everything from where Mr. McCain would go to what advertisements he would run. Mr. Schmidt has told associates that he feared that system was unworkable and would lead to gridlock in the campaign; instead, he is likely to install a political director in Mr. McCain’s campaign headquarters.

Mr. Schmidt’s elevation is the latest sign of increasing influence of veterans of Mr. Rove’s campaign efforts in the McCain operation. Nicolle Wallace, who was communications director for Mr. Bush in the 2004 campaign and in his White House, has joined the campaign as a senior adviser, and will travel with Mr. McCain every other week. Greg Jenkins, another veteran of Mr. Rove’s operation, has joined the McCain communications operation.

Mr. Jenkins is a former Fox News producer and a director of Mr. Bush’s presidential advance team that set up political events.

Many Republicans, including some of Mr. McCain’s own aides, were greatly concerned about a speech that Mr. McCain gave the night that Senator Barack Obama claimed the Democratic presidential nomination. During that speech, Mr. McCain stood in front of a green background facing a low-energy crowd of supporters, providing a startling contrast with Mr. Obama’s supporters.

Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers and an ally of Mr. Davis, described the change in the campaign operation as a retooling in advance of the general election. He said Mr. Schmidt would be the chief operating officer of the campaign, serving under Mr. Davis, in charge mostly of helping Mr. McCain settle on a message and get it out with speeches, advertisements, and surrogate events.

“He is going to be the chief choreographer,” Mr. Black said of Mr. Schmidt.

Still, other Republicans said that Mr. Schmidt was, for all intents and purposes, now in charge of the campaign and that Mr. Davis would work on more longer-term projects. They said they had been trying to make this change quietly to avoid another round of news reports about a campaign in chaos.

The shift comes after what even Mr. McCain’s aides acknowledged has been a squandered period of campaigning since he became the presumptive Republican nominee in February, a time when Mr. Obama was engaged in a tough struggle with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. On Wednesday, Mr. McCain visited Colombia, his second overseas trip in a month, and one that he took despite the urging of Republicans who said he needed to convey to voters his concerns about domestic problems and the economy.

“Somebody asked, ‘what’s the strategy behind this?’ ” Mr. Black said of the foreign travel. “It’s simple. McCain says he wants to go to these places, and we say of course.”

But, Mr. Black added, the trip to Colombia should help to underline what the McCain campaign wanted to make “one of the big contrasts in this race: Obama wants to become the first protectionist president in our history since Herbert Hoover.”

Any emphasis added by me.

The idea that McCain's not exploited the 4-month advantage he had on Obama seems pretty clear, though how he was supposed to get airtime during that nomination process between Obama & Clinton is a good question.

Still, he's clearly behind at the moment and the decision to bring in some more ruthless tacticians seems to be the next step. Now let's see if Obama's campaign, which has said they're ready for the upcoming smear campaign, can put their money where their mouth is.

[Flasch186]

here come the 527's

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

here come the 527's

Well, at least we won't have to worry about the Swift Boaters, given that they're working directly for the McCain campaign now.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

here come the 527's

Clark seems to have learned from them in his recent comments. It's going to start to get ugly for both sides starting in the next few weeks.

[CamEdwards]

I heard Ed Schultz pound McCain today for his wife's unpaid property taxes, calling it a character issue. I tried to call in and bring up Obama's unpaid parking tickets, but no one ever answered the phone.

[Flasch186]

i think both are much ado about nothing and I hope the shit like that stays out of the main press. I also have fear that at some point one of the contenders (more likely McCain) will become desperate and begin an attack trend bent on thrashing the opponent (in this scenario Obama) and end up destroying whatever's left of our country's heart (in the near term). Im just not sure people can take it this summer.

[larrymcg421]

Recent Rasmussen polls...

Florida: McCain 48-41
Connecticut: Obama 52-35
Massachusetts: Obama 53-33
New York: Obama 60-29

Florida is very good news for McCain, while the CT poll brings things back to reality. Obama was only leading by 1 there in an earlier poll, which didn't sound right.

[albionmoonlight]

McCain has to (and will) go pretty negative. Obama wins if people believe that he is different and can and will move past "I didn't have sex with that woman"/"John Kerry faked his war wounds" politics. McCain has a chance to win if people end up disillusioned and thinking that this election is the same old shit, different year. If he attacks Obama, and Obama does not respond, then Obama is weak (and, since negative ads work, they will give McCain an advantage). If he attacks Obama, and Obama responds in kind, then Obama is the same old shit. Either way, advantage McCain. McCain needs to drag this into the gutter ASAP.

It is kind of ironic because Bush did the same thing to McCain in the 2000 primaries when McCain was the maverick outsider and Bush was the establishment choice. The establishement always has the advantage when voters are disheartened.

Finally, I would note that I would be feeling pretty good about this election season if I were a Republican. The GOP might lose the White House for the next 4-8 years. But, considering what Bush has done, the fact that the GOP still stands a 1/3 chance of pulling this out (see www.fivethirtyeight.com ) indicates that America has the GOP in its DNA. As soon as Bush is in the rear-view mirror, people will come flocking back.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I heard Ed Schultz pound McCain today for his wife's unpaid property taxes, calling it a character issue. I tried to call in and bring up Obama's unpaid parking tickets, but no one ever answered the phone.

I think you have to give Cindy McCain a pass on the property taxes. After all, she was probably too hopped up on stolen painkillers to notice she had taxes to pay.

Talking about a character issue, how about McCain flying to Canada (on his wife's plane, unreimbursed) to give a speech and attend a fundraising dinner, while the campaign finance legislation which bears his name expressly forbids fundraising from foreigners? Good stuff.

[st.cronin]

I think this will be mostly a pretty cordial campaign. I know quite a few people who are big Obama fans, and most of them like McCain as well, and think he's a fine person. I think that goes the other way, too. I am one of the biggest McCain honks you'll ever meet, but Obama doesn't repulse me the way Gore and Clinton did, for example. I am not saying there won't be negative campaigning, but I don't think it has the same high yield potential as in recent presidential seasons.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Recent Rasmussen polls...

Florida: McCain 48-41
Connecticut: Obama 52-35
Massachusetts: Obama 53-33
New York: Obama 60-29

Florida is very good news for McCain, while the CT poll brings things back to reality. Obama was only leading by 1 there in an earlier poll, which didn't sound right.

The last three states have always been blue states. Not sure what's so surprising about those poll results. It's the swing states, like Florida, that matter.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Finally, I would note that I would be feeling pretty good about this election season if I were a Republican. The GOP might lose the White House for the next 4-8 years. But, considering what Bush has done, the fact that the GOP still stands a 1/3 chance of pulling this out (see www.fivethirtyeight.com ) indicates that America has the GOP in its DNA. As soon as Bush is in the rear-view mirror, people will come flocking back.

I agree with this. I think the GOP has some new blood (with women like Palin and Hutchinson, Huckabee, and others) that could help give the GOP a makeover and a new appeal.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The last three states have always been blue states. Not sure what's so surprising about those poll results. It's the swing states, like Florida, that matter.

Where did I say they were surprising? These were just the results they had today. I posted an analysis of them and at no point did I say they were surprising.

[JPhillips]

The more surprising result is the Montana poll that has Obama up by five. I doubt it will hold, but no wonder McCain's campaign is panicking and completely revamping itself.

[larrymcg421]

Montana isn't too surprising. it's a bit different than the rest of that region. Clinton won it in 1992 based on economic concerns, and I could see Obama doing the same this year.

[flere-imsaho]

Some new and, in my opinion, crazy polls out today, courtesy of electoral-vote.com:

Georgia Obama=44% McCain=46% Insider Advantage
Montana Obama=48% McCain=43% Rasmussen

As the guy at electoral-vote says, let's wait for some corroborating polls. If these turn out to be accurate, though, that's a portent of doom for McCain.

[molson]

Obama's spending the day in Montana, which obviously, has been huge news there, so I wouldn't read into any poll results from there until that dies down.

[duckman]

I personally don't start paying attention to polls until mid-September.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Some new and, in my opinion, crazy polls out today, courtesy of electoral-vote.com:

Georgia Obama=44% McCain=46% Insider Advantage
Montana Obama=48% McCain=43% Rasmussen

As the guy at electoral-vote says, let's wait for some corroborating polls. If these turn out to be accurate, though, that's a portent of doom for McCain.

The Georgia one does not surprise at all, and I'll say that Obama is going to be close in Georgia and may even have a slight lead at times in polls until the election. Will that mean he wins Georgia? That may be less likely. But there is no doubt that he will not lose by the gaps the Dems lost in the last two elections.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think this will be mostly a pretty cordial campaign. I know quite a few people who are big Obama fans, and most of them like McCain as well, and think he's a fine person. I think that goes the other way, too. I am one of the biggest McCain honks you'll ever meet, but Obama doesn't repulse me the way Gore and Clinton did, for example. I am not saying there won't be negative campaigning, but I don't think it has the same high yield potential as in recent presidential seasons.

I don't know, man. I wish I could agree with you.

[flere-imsaho]

I doubt the campaign will stay cordial for much longer. After all, McCain just appointed a Rove apprentice to head his campaign, and has staffed his "Truth Squad" with the Swift Boat guys from 2004. It's only a matter of time. And on the Obama side, if he picks someone like Webb or Clark as VP (i.e. a military guy) it's going to be brutal as they lay into McCain's record on Iraq, his record on "supporting the troops" (read: G.I. Bill), his lack of distinction at the Naval Academy, and his propensity to cloak himself in his POW experiences.

I'll agree that I think things between the two candidates themselves will stay pretty cordial, assuming McCain can keep his temper under control.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'll agree that I think things between the two candidates themselves will stay pretty cordial, assuming McCain can keep his temper under control.

History may repeat itself again. The one with most legendary temper in high politics in the past generation has been Bill Clinton and he couldn't hold his temper numerous times on the primaries trail.

[Buccaneer]

Speaking of history repeating, I saw a bumper sticker today that brought back memories. Most of you were too young to remember the 1992 campaign, at least the day-to-day stuff. Back then, the theme was "hope" and "change". Many bought into solely because of fatigue after 12 years of Reagan/Bush1 and people just wanted something different. Most probably realistically didn't think it would be change for the better (i.e., still mage-partisanship) but that didn't matter. They simply wanted something new, esp. in difficult economic times. I see a lot of parallels between 1992 and 2008 (including a race wild card instead of a 3rd-party wild card) - simple political fatigue in difficult economic times - and a message of "hope" and "change".

[Ksyrup]

Obama's decision to hold his acceptance speech at Mile High and have a radio station giveaway-like fundraiser (give at least $5 and get a chance to win one of 10 trips to the convention) is brilliant. A packed Mile High is going to look mighty impressive on TV. I find the giveaway a bit distasteful, though. For a guy who is taking a bunch of criticism for being elitist, I'm not sure treating him like Bono is a smart move.

[Buccaneer]

Obama is rock star.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Be committed to something. Hell, be committed to anything other than mediocrity, surrender, appeasement of your enemies.

Mediocrity, surrender, appeasement of your enemies... These are just meaningless words. Nobody likes mediocrity, surrendering, or giving your "enemies" a helping hand.

Not being far right or far left isn't being committed to nothing... It's being committed to something (or a lot of things) that don't happily sit under one of the two umbrellas. I think it's safe to say I lean left, but at the same time I think the far left are very, very naive and very, very unrealistic.

As for the far right, well, they are just plain evil.

But more seriously, the far right are, typically, far less honest and humanistic than the left, though a good deal more realistic. Rhetoric is their strongpoint, and that's probably my biggest gripe. I guess some of my views on certain things could be considered pretty far right, but it'd be a minority.

So there is no term like far left or far right that fits me, because I don't just subscribe to whatever happens to get put under each respective umbrella term. Again, doesn't mean I don't believe in anything.

[Groundhog]

I hope Obama wins because I think he is a pretty interesting guy, and though I doubt it will really make much of a difference who wins, I guess a part of me is strangely still optimistic.

Having said that, I unfortunately just can't see a guy like Obama getting in to the Oval Office over a guy like McCain.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Obama is rock star.

Exactly. For a guy labeled as elitist and more about personality and flash than substance, this seems to feed right into that criticism. Still a brilliant move, though. I suspect this election is not going to be close. McCain is Dole...without a serious 3rd party to make the gap smaller than it otherwise would be.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I see a lot of parallels between 1992 and 2008 (including a race wild card instead of a 3rd-party wild card) - simple political fatigue in difficult economic times - and a message of "hope" and "change".

Clinton/Gore came out of the DLC wing of the party (which is almost non-existent now), and they ran on a very centrist, substantive platform in 1992. It remains to be seen what the Obama/????? ticket will do. We know that he gives great speeches, but we'll see what happens when the real campaign begins this fall.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Clinton/Gore came out of the DLC wing of the party (which is almost non-existent now), and they ran on a very centrist, substantive platform in 1992. It remains to be seen what the Obama/????? ticket will do. We know that he gives great speeches, but we'll see what happens when the real campaign begins this fall.

You are thinking we might have substantiveness??? In these times???? Just a few sound bites of the politicians telling you want to hear and the promise that Washington DC will solve all of the problems are all that is needed.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I hope Obama wins because I think he is a pretty interesting guy, and though I doubt it will really make much of a difference who wins, I guess a part of me is strangely still optimistic.

Having said that, I unfortunately just can't see a guy like Obama getting in to the Oval Office over a guy like McCain.

What do you mean by you hope he wins because he is interesting?

Fortune has a great feature, "How I'll fix the economy", that looks at both candidates in-depth.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What do you mean by you hope he wins because he is interesting?

Fortune has a great feature, "How I'll fix the economy", that looks at both candidates in-depth.

People still believe that a president can "fix" the economy? oh goodie.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What do you mean by you hope he wins because he is interesting?

I find him interesting because there is a lot about him (esp. his personal values and his past) that does't align up with what I expect from a presidential candidate.

If he gets in I'll be interested in what, if anything, he does about some of these issues.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I find him interesting because there is a lot about him (esp. his personal values and his past) that does't align up with what I expect from a presidential candidate.

If he gets in I'll be interested in what, if anything, he does about some of these issues.

Problem I get with Obama is that I don't see the "change" (as in, someone who will attack the problems and provide real fixes, has a real vision and direction). He's vague. Lately, he has been trying to moderate himself on some of his stances. I don't know if that will help, or come to bite him in the butt.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Where did I say they were surprising? These were just the results they had today. I posted an analysis of them and at no point did I say they were surprising.

I must of read your comments on Connecticut in another way. My apologizes.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

People still believe that a president can "fix" the economy? oh goodie.

Fortune put a lot of time into it, I must say.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Problem I get with Obama is that I don't see the "change" (as in, someone who will attack the problems and provide real fixes, has a real vision and direction). He's vague. Lately, he has been trying to moderate himself on some of his stances. I don't know if that will help, or come to bite him in the butt.

Well, I don't mind that so much. He's trying to get elected. If he is too radical he's going to upset a lot of people. From what I read I think already he is considered pretty radical by some, fairly or not.

Either he gets elected and then starts to push for big changes, or he gets elected and, well, does what every other president does.

As for McCain, he gets elected and he does exactly what every other president does, and that's another reason why I think he wins.

[Karlifornia]

So, I'm on some other website...sbnation, I think. I see this ad that has a picture of Ahmadinejad and a picture of Obama. Below it is the question "Do you think our president meeting with anti-American leaders?"

Then, below that, it says "Paid for by McCain 2008"

First of all, nice job playing into the "Obama is a terrorist" idiocy that some people actually fall for (I actually heard a girl I work with mention that Obama, if elected, would be sworn in on the Koran..this was like a week ago). Also, what the hell is wrong with meeting with enemies? Do enemies become non-enemies if we just ignore them?

What the fug is wrong with politics? It's so morally bankrupt that I don't even care anymore. I find it hard to be motivated to even vote at all. I'm 24...I don't have any money. What does it matter who I vote for?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

What the fug is wrong with politics? It's so morally bankrupt that I don't even care anymore. I find it hard to be motivated to even vote at all. I'm 24...I don't have any money. What does it matter who I vote for?

Look at it like this; whoever wins, you're going to be hearing an awful lot from them over the next 4 or more years. With that in mind, pick the guy you'd rather listen to rattle off buzz words about, to quote JIMGA, "mediocrity, surrender, appeasement of your enemies", etc.

Who do you think will look and sound more honest when rattling off meaningless rhetoric during his State of the Union address?

These are the crucial areas that your vote can directly influence!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Speaking of history repeating, I saw a bumper sticker today that brought back memories. Most of you were too young to remember the 1992 campaign, at least the day-to-day stuff.

To me, it was more a campaign about weariness, than about changing direction. Reagan/Bush had lasted 12 years and the quick recession during Bush's term gave people enough of an excuse to vote for the other guy (Clinton or Perot, depending). Both Clinton and Perot hammered on that specific issue (both famously, by the way) and Bush never gave that much of an effort to fight back.

I remember that specifically about that campaign - it seemed to me that along the way Bush just gave up. By the time of the Convention, when he got saddled with a very right-wing platform, he just seemed defeated, personally.

Then in 2000, it happened again - people just got weary of the incumbent, and Gore couldn't do enough to get people fired up.

In this year, I don't think people are as much weary as they are scared and angry. Bush's approval ratings are the lowest in history. Eighty percent of the country thinks we're going in the wrong direction. People want to go in a different direction, and Obama's tapping into that.

I think you'll find the best parallels, Bucc, if you look at the generational aspect. Clinton got a big boost from Boomers who wanted to vote for a member of their cohort. That, as much as anything, was the "change" in that campaign. After 12 years of cloak-and-dagger administrations and increasingly awkward and uninspiring leaders (both Reagan and Bush went downhill in office), Clinton was definitely a breath of fresh air (at least, once he learned to give a speech - anyone remember how he bombed at the 1988 convention?).

Likewise, although Obama may not technically be a member of Generation X (on the cusp?) or Y (definitely not), he's getting a boost from being nowhere near as old as McCain.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

After 12 years of cloak-and-dagger administrations and increasingly awkward and uninspiring leaders (both Reagan and Bush went downhill in office).........

I'd agree with you on the first Bush as he appeared to ride Reagan's coattails, but I couldn't disagree more with your assessment that Reagan was an awkward and uninspiring leader. I remember as early as the Carter administration and Reagan was my favorite president by far. It's not even close.

[Passacaglia]

I remember that specifically about that campaign - it seemed to me that along the way Bush just gave up. By the time of the Convention, when he got saddled with a very right-wing platform, he just seemed defeated, personally.

I'd agree with that -- didn't Bush call Clinton and Gore fools, or clowns, or something stupid like that, about a week before the election? Seemed low-brow to me.

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/...on-center.html

Whether or not you agree with the characterization of Barack Obama as a rootin' tootin', no good flip-flopper, bear the following in mind: all else being equal, a politician can expect to be punished if he changes his positions. Therefore, a politician will only change positions if the benefits outweigh the consequences.

Rasmussen has some new numbers out that suggest that Obama may indeed be reaping the benefits. In June, 26 percent of likely voters viewed McCain as a moderate versus 22 percent for Obama. But now, those numbers have -- flip-flopped. Obama is now seen as a moderate by 27 percent of voters, versus 23 percent for McCain.

The salient fact here is not necessarily that Obama is perceived as more moderate than he once was; that's pretty much what you'd expect. Rather, it's that he's somehow managed to make McCain seem more conservative. Presently, 28 percent of voters describe McCain as Very Conservative, whereas only 19 percent did a month ago. It may be the case that the McCain campaign's inability to define their candidate has left him relatively unable to carve out his own ground; voters are defining him solely in relation to Barack Obama.

What makes these numbers especially tricky for McCain is that he had shifted rightward during the primaries -- and has continued to do so to a certain extent in the general election campaign, with positions like his call for offshore drilling. If he were to attempt to move to the center now, that would not merely be a flip-flop; it would be a flip-flop squared.

There are still a few other cards the Republicans have left to play; their 527's, for instance, will do everything in their power to see that Obama is not able to maintain a perception as a moderate. Even so, having ceded the center ground, McCain might not find it easy to get it back. What I'd find particularly exasperating about all of this if I were a Republican donor is that McCain had the first-mover advantage, having finished his primary months ahead of Barack Obama's. Instead of using that time to preempt an Obama move to the center, he failed to do much of anything in particular. Nor, it seems, has his maverick brand been as rainproof as it was made out to be.

I'm not saying that McCain will lose. But I don't agree with his continuing to move rightward after the primaries. Give lipservice to the 30% of the country that approves of Bush, but move to the center.

Those 30% are going to vote for you anyway. I know the argument that they may just choose not to vote. But I don't agree in this case. Anyone left on the GWB bandwagon is a diehard partisan. They are coming out to vote. They may threaten not to. But that is a bluff. They care too much. Why else would they still be sticking to the most unpopular president in history? At this point, it takes a bit of energy and interest to stick with Bush--not just knee-jerk partisan inertia. And people with energy and interest come out to vote.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd agree with you on the first Bush as he appeared to ride Reagan's coattails, but I couldn't disagree more with your assessment that Reagan was an awkward and uninspiring leader. I remember as early as the Carter administration and Reagan was my favorite president by far. It's not even close.

Please note that I said became "increasingly awkward and inspiring" and applied that to the full 12 years of Reagan and Bush.

The shine was starting to come off of Reagan by 1987 what with Iran-Contra and (in hindsight) his illness and infirmity.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

To me, it was more a campaign about weariness, than about changing direction. Reagan/Bush had lasted 12 years and the quick recession during Bush's term gave people enough of an excuse to vote for the other guy (Clinton or Perot, depending). Both Clinton and Perot hammered on that specific issue (both famously, by the way) and Bush never gave that much of an effort to fight back.

I remember that specifically about that campaign - it seemed to me that along the way Bush just gave up. By the time of the Convention, when he got saddled with a very right-wing platform, he just seemed defeated, personally.

Bush had to go far, far right to handle the Pat Buchanan challenge. I remember one story Mary Matalin wrote about Buchanan's speech at the convention, which was filled with alot of extreme social rhetoric. One of her friends turned to her and said, "We just lost the election."

Then in 2000, it happened again - people just got weary of the incumbent, and Gore couldn't do enough to get people fired up.

I don't agree with this. In 2000, Clinton had very high approval ratings. Gore's biggest mistake (among many) was his decision to distance himself from the incumbent, which made it hard for him to take credit for a strong economic situation. Utilizing Clinton more could have delivered him a southern state, which would have been enough to win the election.

In this year, I don't think people are as much weary as they are scared and angry. Bush's approval ratings are the lowest in history. Eighty percent of the country thinks we're going in the wrong direction. People want to go in a different direction, and Obama's tapping into that.

The thing that worked so wellf or Clinton is that he had an extremely likeable personality, but he was also very intelligent. Clinton could fit in at the neighborhood BBQ, or at a foreign summit. The 2000 and 2004 elections saw candidates with one of those two qualities, but none had both. This year, McCain has the intelligent quality, but a Gallup poll has Obama with a 58-23 lead in likeability. If Obama can convince people that he's competent, then he should have an easy time in November.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Not being far right or far left isn't being committed to nothing... It's being committed to something (or a lot of things) that don't happily sit under one of the two umbrellas. I think it's safe to say I lean left, but at the same time I think the far left are very, very naive and very, very unrealistic.

As for the far right, well, they are just plain evil.

But more seriously, the far right are, typically, far less honest and humanistic than the left, though a good deal more realistic. Rhetoric is their strongpoint, and that's probably my biggest gripe. I guess some of my views on certain things could be considered pretty far right, but it'd be a minority.

Hold on a minute. Putting on my idealist hat, both the right and the left actually want the same thing and that is to make the country a better place. Both the right and left are equally humanistic, they just go about it in different ways. (For the record, as I have gotten older, both the right and left want power and use their different platforms as a method to gain that power.)

Let's take the old story about fishing. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach the man how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. The left follows the first path, the right believes in the second path. The left will argue that they truly believe in teaching, but their actions are far more along the lines of giving.

Let's look at children for a minute. Children understand how to manipulate their parents. They know how to get what they want, and they will play upon their parents' emotions to do so. They will ask, threaten, cajole, divide and conquer the parents, etc. All this to get what they want. The same thing happens when you offer to give someone a handout.

Case in point, I was in Clarksdale, MS, and stopped at a Mc Donald's to grab a bite to eat. I had $7 in cash, just enough to get my #5 value meal. Some guy comes up to me and hits me up for money for food. I offer instead to buy the guy a 2 cheeseburger meal. The guy accepts. I go in buy a smaller meal for myself, and buy this guy the 2 cheeseburger meal. The guy then asks if I will buy him something else for later. Plus, he starts complaining about the cheeseburgers and would prefer chicken. I tell him that is what he is getting and good day.

All I accomplished in doing this "good" deed was get pissed off since this guy kept asking for more. But, that is what happens when you give a guy something to eat for a day. It would have taken a great deal more time and effort on my part to teach this person anything useful. Although, in the long run, it would be more effective to do so. What is the more humanistic thing to do in this situation, and what would be best for this gentleman that I "helped"?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

All I accomplished in doing this "good" deed was get pissed off since this guy kept asking for more. But, that is what happens when you give a guy something to eat for a day. It would have taken a great deal more time and effort on my part to teach this person anything useful. Although, in the long run, it would be more effective to do so. What is the more humanistic thing to do in this situation, and what would be best for this gentleman that I "helped"?

And a anti-welfare individual was born.

I've had a similar thing happen, but slightly different. Guy approached me asking for money for food and I stated I wouldn't give him the money but I'd be happy to bring him out some food from the fast food place I was entering. He bitched about it, so I told him he wasn't getting it. After work, I drove by the intersection and the guy was sitting on the corner with a vodka bottle. Guess I know where my money would have ended up.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The thing that worked so wellf or Clinton is that he had an extremely likeable personality, but he was also very intelligent. Clinton could fit in at the neighborhood BBQ, or at a foreign summit.

Or the bunny ranch. What a country!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Let's take the old story about fishing. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach the man how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. The left follows the first path, the right believes in the second path. The left will argue that they truly believe in teaching, but their actions are far more along the lines of giving.

On the other hand, the right will give the rhetoric about teaching the man to fish, but will cut the teaching budget to pay for tax cuts, so no one is able to teach the man to fish .

[larrymcg421]

Let's take the old story about fishing. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach the man how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. The left follows the first path, the right believes in the second path. The left will argue that they truly believe in teaching, but their actions are far more along the lines of giving.

I disagree with this analogy completely. I'd argue that the right is arguing that it's not the government's job to show you how to fish, while the left wants to give you some fish while you are learning how to catch your own.