Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[JPhillips]

dola

Speculation is heavy that Obama will pick Bayh Wednesday. There's a long unspecified time in IN on Obama's schedule and that evening Bayh is scheduled to introduce Obama for a speech. Bayh's office softball team has also canceled it's game on Wednesday night.

It's all so clear that it probably won't happen.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

Speculation is heavy that Obama will pick Bayh Wednesday. There's a long unspecified time in IN on Obama's schedule and that evening Bayh is scheduled to introduce Obama for a speech. Bayh's office softball team has also canceled it's game on Wednesday night.

It's all so clear that it probably won't happen.

Also, the website ObamaBayh08 redirects to the DNC website.

[yacovfb]

Originally Posted by samifan24

Also, the website ObamaBayh08 redirects to the DNC website.

It wouldn't surprise me that much if Bayh is the pick, but that is a fraud:
http://whois.domaintools.com/obamabayh08.com

Not owned by the DNC, so that guy is redirecting it on his own.

[ISiddiqui]

Bayh seems to be a weird pick. He's a DLCer, who not only voted for the Iraq war, but CO-SPONSORED the resolution (but now he says its a mistake). He's pro-choice, but against late term abortions. Maybe Obama thinks the pick would help appeal to moderates (Bayh was very popular as Governor of Indiana), but Bayh is also the son of a powerful political father. He seems to be very much anti the "change" Obama is talking about. He's entrenched in political system through family and by being a DLC type which it seems Obama's core support has felt has sold out the party to become Republican-lite.

[st.cronin]

I agree with Imran again, Bayh makes no sense to me.

[JPhillips]

I'm not thrilled with Bayh, but I think the reason is the Clintons. Bayh would be a bone to the Clinton folks without picking Hillary.

The other option would be that Hillary will be the selection and Bayh would be a perfect person to bring them together

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by yacovfb

It wouldn't surprise me that much if Bayh is the pick, but that is a fraud:
http://whois.domaintools.com/obamabayh08.com

Not owned by the DNC, so that guy is redirecting it on his own.

Thanks for confirming this. I did a WHOIS check on the domain and saw it was registered to an address in Massachusetts state.

[albionmoonlight]

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: What Would You Do With $5M in Ad Time?

Is Barack Obama planning to use the Olympic Games to roll out the national introduction to his running mate? Obama has purchased $5M worth of ads during the Olympic fortnight, unusual in that so rarely do presidential candidates purchase national ad time.

Conventional wisdom has held that neither candidate would pick his running mate during the Olympic Games, because once underway the Games would occupy the nation’s attention at the expense of political news. Granted, some of this is coming from commentators on MSNBC, who can’t exactly claim neutrality – the NBC family would love the Olympics to drown out every other current event. But it has been taken as a given that neither candidate would get much chance to reach voters with his message during those two weeks.

The vice presidential pick is big political news, but consider what the Obama campaign’s ideal scenario is: dozens and dozens of ads aimed at a national audience permitting the Democrats to define and frame the ticket on their own terms. Biographical spots, smiling running mates, optimistic, patriotic, flag-waving images, and no countering ads from the Republicans that define the ticket in negative terms. It’s a mass first impression of an optimistic, change ticket Obama would want to make, and almost a free field to make that impression (there are no reports of any McCain Olympic ad buy, and negative ads during the Olympics feel tonally off). The goal is just enough attention so that huge numbers of viewers come away absorbing a positive feeling from seeing the visuals, with the Games providing just enough cover to elide viewer attention to the dissecting commentary that accompanies such big news.

So how would the VP announcement unfold? It’s unlikely – though certainly possible – that Obama would reveal the pick in an ad itself. The campaign showed a fondness for all-network, blanket, two-minute closing ads during the primary season and there would be huge anticipation if they could simultaneously promise a big announcement while keeping the lid on the secret. However, in this case it would amount to giving NBC an exclusive and would unnecessarily risk catty feelings among rival networks.

Instead, an all-network press conference during the day followed quickly by the first introduction ad in Olympics prime time would both capture a lot of eyeballs and allow the Obama camp to control the all-important imagery. For what it's worth, Michael Phelps – so big a story that the Olympic schedule was adjusted specifically to put him in American prime time – has individual gold pursuits during prime time on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday next week.

An interesting idea. It has all the advantages that this post notes. But it also kind of plays into the "Obama thinks that he is better than us" theme if McCain spins it right. "Only the Olympics are grand enough for Emperor Obama to announce his VP pick."

Either way, it would be slightly different, which is enough for me to hope that it happens this way, notwithstanding the consequences.

EDIT--Apparently McCain has bought 20% more ad time than Obama during the Olympics. Which pretty much makes the above quote moot.

[Maple Leafs]

So... this John Edwards scandal sure seems like its about to blow up, no?

[JPhillips]

This is a pretty good take by David Brooks.

Where’s the Landslide?
By DAVID BROOKS

Why isn’t Barack Obama doing better? Why, after all that has happened, does he have only a slim two- or three-point lead over John McCain, according to an average of the recent polls? Why is he basically tied with his opponent when his party is so far ahead?

His age probably has something to do with it. So does his race. But the polls and focus groups suggest that people aren’t dismissive of Obama or hostile to him. Instead, they’re wary and uncertain.

And the root of it is probably this: Obama has been a sojourner. He opened his book “Dreams From My Father” with a quotation from Chronicles: “For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers.”

There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart. He put one foot in the institutions he rose through on his journey but never fully engaged. As a result, voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded.

Last week Jodi Kantor of The Times described Obama’s 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School. “The young law professor stood apart in too many ways to count,” Kantor wrote.

He was a popular and charismatic professor, but he rarely took part in faculty conversations or discussions about the future of the institution. He had a supple grasp of legal ideas, but he never committed those ideas to paper by publishing a piece of scholarship.

He was in the law school, but not of it.

This has been a consistent pattern throughout his odyssey. His childhood was a peripatetic journey through Kansas, Indonesia, Hawaii and beyond. He absorbed things from those diverse places but was not fully of them.

His college years were spent on both coasts. He was a community organizer for three years but left before he could be truly effective. He became a state legislator, but he was in the Legislature, not of it. He had some accomplishments, but as Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker wrote, he was famously bored by the institution and used it as a stepping stone to higher things.

He was in Trinity United Church of Christ, but not of it, not sharing the liberation theology that energized Jeremiah Wright Jr. He is in the United States Senate, but not of it. He has not had the time nor the inclination to throw himself into Senate mores, or really get to know more than a handful of his colleagues. His Democratic supporters there speak of him fondly, but vaguely.

And so it goes. He is a liberal, but not fully liberal. He has sometimes opposed the Chicago political establishment, but is also part of it. He spoke at a rally against the Iraq war, while distancing himself from many antiwar activists.

This ability to stand apart accounts for his fantastic powers of observation, and his skills as a writer and thinker. It means that people on almost all sides of any issue can see parts of themselves reflected in Obama’s eyes. But it does make him hard to place.

When we’re judging candidates (or friends), we don’t just judge the individuals but the milieus that produced them. We judge them by the connections that exist beyond choice and the ground where they will go home to be laid to rest. Andrew Jackson was a backwoodsman. John Kennedy had his clan. Ronald Reagan was forever associated with the small-town virtues of Dixon and Jimmy Carter with Plains.

It is hard to plant Obama. Both he and his opponent have written coming-of-age tales about their fathers, but they are different in important ways. McCain’s “Faith of My Fathers” is a story of a prodigal son. It is about an immature boy who suffers and discovers his place in the long line of warriors that produced him. Obama’s “Dreams From My Father” is a journey forward, about a man who took the disparate parts of his past and constructed an identity of his own.

If you grew up in the 1950s, you were inclined to regard your identity as something you were born with. If you grew up in the 1970s, you were more likely to regard your identity as something you created.

If Obama is fully a member of any club — and perhaps he isn’t — it is the club of smart post-boomer meritocrats. We now have a cohort of rising leaders, Obama’s age and younger, who climbed quickly through elite schools and now ascend from job to job. They are conscientious and idealistic while also being coldly clever and self-aware. It’s not clear what the rest of America makes of them.

So, cautiously, the country watches. This should be a Democratic wipeout. But voters seem to be slow to trust a sojourner they cannot place.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Will Paris Hilton be added to the poll today?

[Young Drachma]

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

[Flasch186]

props to her and the producers....that was pretty funny.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is a pretty good take by David Brooks.

Interesting. As I read it, it seemed to me that Brooks is, in fact, describing most Americans. We all get involved in a myriad of activities that interest us, we all move from thing to thing, but the list of things we get heavily invested in is actually pretty small.

Anyway, some other "Why isn't it an Obama landslide yet" columns from:

Charlie Cook

Nate Silver (538.com)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Paris Hilton

"We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. ... Energy crisis solved, I'll see you at the debates, bitches!"

That's more-or-less my view. Well, fuck....

[flere-imsaho]

State-by-state EV projections, from fivethirtyeight.com, summarized and compared to the last time I did this, which was 17 July:

[albionmoonlight]

Now, we can all finally vent our spleens to a wider audience. Maybe someone in this thread can take their energy and talent and become a star:

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

I'm not sure this will work but it's worth a try. During the primaries, it felt as if the voters were often controlling the campaign. Especially with Obama and Ron Paul, the pampered professionals were out-messaged, out-Youtubed and out-organized by legions of amateurs. I know the general election is inevitably more concentrated and remote than the primaries, but it's sad to see this new media democratic moment pass. It's especially sad when so many of us are now forced to sit back and wait for various pros to unveil their latest negative ads and then debate them - giving them oxygen and exposure and power. I really don't want to give Steve Schmidt that kind of satisfaction, do you? I don't want to live through another lame, predictable bout of Britney-mania without some pre-emptive mockery.

So here's a thought. Couldn't we take some of that power away from the pros - especially with negative advertizing - by pre-empting and defusing them? What I'm thinking of is a Dish Youtube contest to come up with the least fair, most effective negative ads for both sides. The technology is widely available for making your own 30-second negative spots, and it's good therapy. So let's flood the zone. I know it sounds cynical, but in fact, it's the opposite. If we can put out the most damning attacks on Obama and McCain we can, it could help dilute the nasty noise from the party establishments, expose the mechanisms of smears and take the wind out of the sails of the pros.

The idea is not to produce crude and ugly smears or lies.

The content must be factually accurate (even if horribly misleading) and the images for real. And if you want to play the race or "elitist" or emasculating card against Obama or the age or temper or war-monger card against McCain, it has to be done so that there's an official "issues-based" defense of the ad, even though it's transparently a smear of sorts. By doing this, we could even help expose the way in which this cynical enterprise is constructed by the pros.

Cut and paste some video and audio and make the ad you would love to run against the candidate you oppose. Put it up on Youtube and send me the link. Over the next couple of weeks, I'll post the best ones and then we can vote on the best, or worst, if you see what I mean. Maybe one of them will be so good it will go viral and shift the debate a little. Or maybe it will be too complicated for many respondents to take art. Who knows?
What I do know is that I'm sick of sitting back and waiting for the big guns to unload. The election doesn't have to be that way any more. So let's take back the narrative by pre-empting the nasties. And we can have some fun at the same time. Deal?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Sorry, but this is just laughable. An idiot rep decided to endorse Paris Hilton's 'energy plan'. I find this laughable not because I disagree with it (most Republicans, Independents, and moderate Democrats would likely agree with the premise of it), but rather because this rep acts like this is some profound new idea that nobody has considered before. Paris did nothing more than read off a teleprompter what millions of Americans have been thinking and voicing for some time. The problem is that the politicians continue to not act on those wishes.

FOXNews.com - Congressman Gives a Plug to 'Paris Hilton Plan' in Energy Debate - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

[JPhillips]

My understanding is that the Gang of Ten plan that Obama said he was willing to support is pretty close to this except that it also closes tax loopholes on oil companies. That "tax increase," however, will keep it from being passed.

[Vegas Vic]

I'm seeing tons of Obama and McCain commercials out here. It looks like they're both fighting hard for Nevada's five electoral votes.

[BrianD]

Anybody know what is going on with Hillary in advance of the official nomination? Right-wing radio is going nuts with Bill's refusal to state his belief that Obama is ready to be President or that he is qualified. Note that Bill isn't actually refusing to say it...he just seems to keep dancing around the question. It also sounds like Hillary, in her speeches, is leaving the door open on the possibility of still being involved.

Again, this is right-wing radio, so I'm curious if any of this stuff really has legs.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Anybody know what is going on with Hillary in advance of the official nomination? Right-wing radio is going nuts with Bill's refusal to state his belief that Obama is ready to be President or that he is qualified. Note that Bill isn't actually refusing to say it...he just seems to keep dancing around the question. It also sounds like Hillary, in her speeches, is leaving the door open on the possibility of still being involved.

Again, this is right-wing radio, so I'm curious if any of this stuff really has legs.

Hillary said in a campaign event a few days for Obama that her people ought to scream, then get to work electing Obama. So she's pretty much taking one for the team and even when they asked her what would happen with her delegates or her pulling a fast one, she basically said "I'm committed to getting Barack Obama elected."

Bill is in Africa and I think the thing is, for him, it's not even JUST about Hillary. Obama diminishes his legacy, so naturally that has to be playing a part in how mad he is that this kid came along just two terms after him to steal his thunder as the saviour of the Democrats.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I'm seeing tons of Obama and McCain commercials out here. It looks like they're both fighting hard for Nevada's five electoral votes.

If Obama wins all of the Kerry states + Iowa, + [2 of Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico] then he has 269 at a minimum (which is all he needs since the House will be Democratic).

While this might not be the easiest path to Victory for Obama, it is certainly one of the easiest. And it is cheaper than running ads in Florida, Virginia, et al. So I can see an intense focus on those three Western states by both campaigns.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Bill is in Africa and I think the thing is, for him, it's not even JUST about Hillary. Obama diminishes his legacy, so naturally that has to be playing a part in how mad he is that this kid came along just two terms after him to steal his thunder as the saviour of the Democrats.

You would think that the first black president would treat the possible second black president more kindly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If Obama wins all of the Kerry states + Iowa, + [2 of Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico] then he has 269 at a minimum (which is all he needs since the House will be Democratic).

While this might not be the easiest path to Victory for Obama, it is certainly one of the easiest. And it is cheaper than running ads in Florida, Virginia, et al. So I can see an intense focus on those three Western states by both campaigns.

It'll be interesting to see the poll numbers over the next 10-15 days. Kerry began a pretty big polling free-fall in mid-August in 2004. Obama's numbers are similar to Kerry in that he had a big lead in June and July and both Kerry and Obama see their numbers decreasing in early August.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It'll be interesting to see the poll numbers over the next 10-15 days. Kerry began a pretty big polling free-fall in mid-August in 2004. Obama's numbers are similar to Kerry in that he had a big lead in June and July and both Kerry and Obama see their numbers decreasing in early August.

A big part of that fall was due to the combination of Kerry accepting public financing (Bush did also) along with the democratic national convention taking place about five weeks before the republican national convention. Bush was able to spend his "primary" money for that additional time, while Kerry had to ration his allocated funds and stretch them out to last for an additional month.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It'll be interesting to see the poll numbers over the next 10-15 days. Kerry began a pretty big polling free-fall in mid-August in 2004. Obama's numbers are similar to Kerry in that he had a big lead in June and July and both Kerry and Obama see their numbers decreasing in early August.

And, let's not forget that McCain became the nominee long after the GOP had left him for dead and were focusing on whether Rudy and Romney could hold off Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

McCain has that useful trait of being liked by the voters, even after the talking heads have come up with their 1001 reasons why he has no chance.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

McCain has that useful trait of being liked by the voters, even after the talking heads have come up with their 1001 reasons why he has no chance.

Also, in six out of the past seven election cycles, the republican candidate has performed 10-15 points higher in the actual election than his standing in the July polls. We'll have to wait and see if that trend comes to fruition again this year.

[JPhillips]

Vic: You're massaging the numbers a bit. I think you must be going by lowest poll number in July as opposed to an average. Further a low point in July doesn't necessarily provide an accurate picture of the race. In 2004 there were at least four big swings from April to September. In 2004 Bush had times before and after July when he was up by several points.

You may have a better point arguing that Bush and perhaps others outperformed their high polling average by a few points, but I haven't looked at other races yet.

[JPhillips]

Here's another nice graph. There's certainly a pattern of big changes in late summer, but in 2000 it was Gore that charged back in August where in 2004 Bush overtook Kerry. In both cases, though, I think it's important to note that the Republicans had large advantages a year out. I wonder if the 2008 line is important because the support for a Democrat has been greater for most of the year and so far there hasn't been a big switch like we're used to seeing.

[SFL Cat]

A Clinton coup attempt at the convention wouldn't surprise me. That would certainly be prime time entertainment. I think Clinton and her supporters are still feeling a bit raw and resentful toward what they perceive to be the media's glad handling of Obama during the primary season.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You would think that the first black president would treat the possible second black president more kindly.

I know, right? lol

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Vic: You're massaging the numbers a bit. I think you must be going by lowest poll number in July as opposed to an average.

Actually, I was going by the average republican gain over all of the cycles, which includes Ford's 33 point deficit in July 1976 and GHWB's 17 point deficit in July 1988.

[JPhillips]

But that does look like you're taking the lowest poll taken in July, correct? I've dug around but can't find polling data past 2000, do you have a link(s)?

[NoMyths]

Chris Wallace interviewed McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis yesterday, and addressed some of the "misleading" statements the McCain campaign has been promoting, among other issues. Interesting interview.

Link: (FOX News) Transcript: McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis on 'FOX News Sunday'

Key quotes:

WALLACE: All right. Let's take a look at one of your campaign's recent ads. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARRATOR: Life in the spotlight must be grand. But for the rest of us, times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Mr. Davis, especially that last sentence, isn't that misleading?

DAVIS: Nothing misleading about it. Barack Obama voted for a budget resolution that would have increased taxes on people, families, making $42,000. What's misleading about that?

WALLACE: Well, in fact, it only would be single people making $42,000. It would be families making over $60,000. But Obama — as you say, he voted for a non-binding budget resolution that overall talked about doing away with the Bush tax cuts.

In fact, he says, that's not his tax plan, that he supports a middle-class tax cut. And I want to put something up on the screen. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center says someone making $37,000 a year under Obama's plan would get a tax cut of $892. Under McCain's plan, they get a tax cut of $113.

DAVIS: Look, Obama wants to take away the current tax cuts that people now have. That includes a $1,000 child tax credit for people exactly in that category. It means doing away with the marriage penalty and many other things. In the short period of time Barack Obama has been in the United States Senate, less than 300 working days, he has voted for 90 tax increases.

Now, we could have an ad on every tax increase he's voted on every single day between now and the election and still not get them all in. So I don't think anybody's going to question — who's going to raise your taxes as president of the United States? Barack Obama. Who's going to cut your taxes and hold down spending as president of the United States? John McCain.

WALLACE: But again, when you have a nonpartisan group saying that, in fact, for the exact group that you're talking about, people making $37,000, $40,000 a year, that Obama would cut their taxes more than McCain...

DAVIS: Then Obama should put that in an ad. We're going to talk about the things Obama has said and done in the United States Senate and on the campaign trail, and that includes his vote to increase taxes on people making $42,000 a year.

WALLACE: All right. We're going to — I'm asking you that because we're going to come back on McCain votes as well. Let's take a look at another McCain ad. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARRATOR: Washington's broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Does Senator McCain really believe that, that this country is worse off than we were four years ago?

DAVIS: Sure. All along the trail, John McCain campaigns around real people. He goes to town halls and he hears what they have to say to him.

You don't have to be in very many town halls, Chris, to understand that people are pinched by the increase in gas prices. They're losing jobs because of some downturn in manufacturing. And the economy as a whole has been very hard on the American family.

That's what John McCain's referring to. He doesn't have to go very far every day to find those kinds of examples.

WALLACE: Given that, I want you to respond to this clip from an Obama ad. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: The president and I agree on most issues. There was a recent study that showed that I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: In fact, Mr. Davis, Senator McCain is understating it. Last year, he voted to support Bush legislation 95 percent of the time.

Given that, if the country's worse off, isn't both the president and John McCain — aren't they both responsible?

DAVIS: Well, look. If you want to talk about history, then you can make all the cases you want to make...

WALLACE: But you're talking about history. You talk about the last four years.

WALLACE: But I've got to come back at you. If you say the country is worse off than it was four years ago, clearly the president has got to bear some of the responsibility. And by his own record, by his own admission, John McCain voted with the president last year 95 percent of the time.

[Toddzilla]

Wowzzors - Chris Wallace growing a set of balls and confronting the GOP. Whodathunkit.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Wowzzors - Chris Wallace growing a set of balls and confronting the GOP. Whodathunkit.

They've done this several times this year in regards to ads on both sides. I'm not going to be the one to say that FOXNews is 'fair and balanced', but this isn't the first time that they've put a hot poker to a GOP person in recent months. Wallace actually does a much better job in that regard than Snow or Hume did IMO.

[flere-imsaho]

Any news media outlet that wants to apply fact-checking to ads from both sides is a good thing, in my opinion.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Wowzzors - Chris Wallace growing a set of balls and confronting the GOP. Whodathunkit.

I think Chris Wallace generally does a good job and has grilled both sides in the past. He is not afraid to stand up and ask tough questions of both parties.

[JPhillips]

Wallace is a bit of a wildcard. He has enough of his father's pitbull in him to really go on the attack when he senses weakness.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Also, in six out of the past seven election cycles, the republican candidate has performed 10-15 points higher in the actual election than his standing in the July polls. We'll have to wait and see if that trend comes to fruition again this year.

You should enjoy a new feature that the electoral-vote.com guy started. On any day, you can click on a link on the page and it takes you back 4 years to the day.

So we can see that, for instance, August 11th 2004 was looking pretty good for John Kerry with 300+ electoral votes.

[JPhillips]

Alan Keyes is keepin it real:

"In terms of the conservative constituency of the Republican Party, Sen. McCain is an opportunistic infection that threatens to ravage and destroy its defenseless body. Tragically for America, in the larger context of our national political life he still plays the role of the AIDS virus, masquerading as a republican while opening the way for Barack Obama, the opportunistic infection that will ravage the defenseless body of our republic. If we accept the McCain/Obama choice, we resign the republic to its demise. I guess the "lesser of evils" crowd will take comfort in the notion that though infected with HIV, the patient actually died of pneumonia. Unfortunately, this is false comfort, since the choice they make increases the virulence of the opportunistic infection,"

[flere-imsaho]

The Obama-Keyes race for the U.S. Senate was quite possibly one of the funnier political races I'd seen in recent memory.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The Obama-Keyes race for the U.S. Senate was quite possibly one of the funnier political races I'd seen in recent memory.

"Quite possibly" "one of" "the funnier"? Awful lot of qualifiers that pretty much just add up to "maybe it was slightly above solemn".

[Buccaneer]

Interesting article that's going to come out in Atlantic Monthly

Memos show Clinton camp lines of attack, disarray - CNN.com

talking about some of the internals wars fought within the Clinton campaign. It seems to me that with all the talk about her "experience", she couldn't make a hard decision to save her (political) life and instead, let the strifes and antagonisms fester. I do very much look forward to reading the definitive book (or Newsweek special issue) from the embedded reporter's views of the three campaigns.

[ISiddiqui]

At least she didn't follow Penn's strategy... daaamn.

[flere-imsaho]

McCain may need a nap:

As Senator Barack Obama headed off for a vacation in Hawaii last week, Senator John McCain was left in the continental United States with the Iowa State Fair to himself. Mr. McCain’s campaign promised to take full advantage this week of Mr. Obama’s absence — for starters, Mr. McCain was scathing about his rival in his weekend radio address — but up close and personal, Mr. McCain sounded as though he would not mind some August beach time himself.

“I think if you were going to take a week off, this is probably an intelligent time to do it,” Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, told a small group of reporters on his campaign plane in a brief session on Friday night. As for himself, “what we do is try to take a day or two down, but it seems when I do that they fill it up with briefings and prep and issues and meetings.”

What makes the difference, Mr. McCain said, is getting enough rest. “If I can sleep in until about 7:30 or 8, then it really helps me,” he said. “I think when I get up real early, like 5:30 or 6, and don’t go to bed until 10, 10:30 or 11, it seems to help me get up a little later in the morning.”

If he's elected, let's hope that "3:00 AM call" comes at 3:00 PM instead.

[molson]

McCain really doesn't want to be talking about his sleep schedule.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

George Clooney evidently is a trusted advisor to Obama on PR and foreign policy........

How George Clooney offers his 'good friend' Barack advice on Iraq | Mail Online

How Clooney offers good friend Obama advice on issues from body language to Iraq

By Caroline Graham and Sharon Churcher
Last updated at 11:39 AM on 11th August 2008


George Clooney once famously declared he could never run for public office because he’d ‘slept with too many women, done too many drugs and been to too many parties’.

But now the Hollywood heart-throb has entered the political arena at
the highest level – by becoming an unofficial adviser to US Presidential front-runner Barack Obama.

Oscar-winner Clooney, 47, is said to be helping the Democratic candidate to polish his image at home and abroad.

But he is also sharing with Obama his strong opinions on Iraq and the Middle East.

Sources say the actor has tried to hide the pair’s friendship for fear his Left-wing views and playboy image would hurt the Presidential hopeful’s bid for the White House.

But Democratic Party insiders have revealed that Clooney and Obama regularly send texts and emails to each other and speak by phone at least twice a week.

One said last night: ‘They are extremely close. A number of members of the Hollywood community, including Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, offered to help raise funds for Barack but it was with George that he struck up this amazing affinity.

‘George has been giving him advice on things such as presentation, public speaking and body language and he also emails him constantly about policy, especially the Middle East.

‘George is pushing him to be more “balanced” on issues such as US relations with Israel.

'George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins.

"It’s a very risky relationship. His hope of becoming America’s first black President depends heavily on winning over conservative voters and it would be suicidal for him to be perceived as a tool of a Hollywood Leftie, which is how they regard George.

‘But they text and email each other almost every day and speak on the phone at least a couple of times a week, often more.’

The Ocean’s Eleven star is among many Hollywood figures to have endorsed Obama, including Barbra Streisand, Scarlett Johansson, Warren Beatty and Steven Spielberg.

One of Clooney’s trusted acquaintances said: ‘George is a master at crafting his own image and he is helping Obama to hone his image both domestically and abroad.

'He told me he feels Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime leader. He is doing everything he can behind the scenes to bolster support in Hollywood, not just with other celebrities but with the money men at the studios.’

The acquaintance added: ‘He has tried to keep the true extent of their involvement out of the Press because he is frightened of alienating voters.’

Clooney himself has admitted in an interview: ‘I’ve had the conversation with him saying, “Look, I’ll give you whatever support you need, including staying completely away from you.”’

The star has never tried to hide his liberal views and last week announced he is making a £15million film about the lawyer who defended Osama Bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Hamdan, on terror charges.

Clooney’s spokesman Stan Rosen-feld said last night: ‘I know they have spoken. I view it as a private conversation.’ Obama’s Press office did not comment.

[albionmoonlight]

What is it about the ability to recite lines and look good that make people think that they can do anything else?