Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[st.cronin]

Axxon - this election, like all general elections, will not be determined by Democrats or Republicans. It will be determined by independents. If the independents turn against Obama, he will lose. Likewise, if the independents turn against McCain, he will lose.

[panerd]

I remember people debating that the '06 elections were actually going to be close (no way they lose the senate) and the GOP got their asses handed to them. While I am of the opinion that the Democrats didn't do anything about Iraq I think most of the country still blames this on Bush 100% and think a Democratic president will get us out of Iraq. While I can't say that I want Obama (or McCain either) to win. I think on Iraq alone ('100 years' will be an ad that we see a whole lot) Obama wins in a landslide.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yep, that's where I'd want to stake my claim -- the middle, right there with the folks who make American Idol so popular. Ever heard me make many arguments in favor of the intelligence or character of the average American?
I didn't think so.



Be committed to something. Hell, be committed to anything other than mediocrity, surrender, appeasement of your enemies. Honestly Axxon, those that aren't are pretty easily dismissed & not worthy of a great deal of respect. They've already shown either a lack of principles or a willingness to bend whatever weak principles they have. They're easy enough to go around or through when the need arises.

Or maybe they have a vision that their parents were right. You know, Jon, play well with others and all that. Maybe they look at both extremes and honestly disagree with both of them. I know I do; I just am more afraid of the right's kooks than I am of the left's kooks honestly.

All those things you consider weakness are things I stand for. I believe that the answer is in the middle because more people will work towards accomplishing your goals instead of opposing them simply because you have an R or D behind your name. I believe you'll get more workable ideas that way and I don't believe that anyone's interests should be marginalized though the extreme ones shouldn't be acted on.

Compromise isn't appeasement no matter what you think.

I believe that more or less this country believed in this pre Reagan and while there were missteps that this country did alright and left or right you could feel proud of it. Now, not so much.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by panerd

I remember people debating that the '06 elections were actually going to be close (no way they lose the senate) and the GOP got their asses handed to them.

The GOP in fact lost the Senate by a tiny margin.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

If my only choice to be a zealot for are the Democrats and the Republicans, there's far more wrong with the world than being a moderate.

It's not about the labels, they're merely a convenient shorthand. It's about the principles that each are attached to. And there's too many instances where the two have distinct separations for me to find credible anyone who can't find enough to distinguish which camp they fall into more closely.

I'm not remotely suggesting that there's some need for a 100% match (remember, I'm adamantly pro-choice), but damned if I can understand how anyone can't find a reasonably consistent leaning toward which one is more compatible with their own priorities ... or at least damned if I can take very seriously anyone who can't.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Axxon - this election, like all general elections, will not be determined by Democrats or Republicans. It will be determined by independents. If the independents turn against Obama, he will lose. Likewise, if the independents turn against McCain, he will lose.

I'm not disagreeing with this so I'm not sure which of my posts you disagreed with that made you post this. Sorry.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I believe that the answer is in the middle

So your goal is to make everyone unhappy? That's what Bush gets blasted for.

Compromise isn't appeasement no matter what you think.

We disagree. The best scenario for compromise is with your knee in your opponent's chest and your knife at his throat. That's an acceptable compromise, anything less is nothing more than putting a shine on failure.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The GOP in fact lost the Senate by a tiny margin.

They lost an awful lot of seats. I think they lost every single close senate and house election. (Obviously some areas are GOP and Dem strongholds where the other side will never win) Missouri was solidly Bush and GOP territory in '00 and '04 and McKaskill won in '06. I didn't mean to say they won a huge majority of the senate, I mean they won every possible seat they should of won and most of the ones that they had a chance on.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So your goal is to make everyone unhappy? That's what Bush gets blasted for.



We disagree. The best scenario for compromise is with your knee in your opponent's chest and your knife at his throat. That's an acceptable compromise, anything less is nothing more than putting a shine on failure.

My goal isn't to make anyone happy or unhappy. My goal isn't appeasement. It's doing what's in the best interest of the country first and that generally falls in the middle ranges not either extreme.

Your way simply ensures that while you've got your knee on some guys chest and holding a knife to their throat that the next guy is sharpening his knife waiting for you to finish so he can stick it to you. That's not good politics it's madness.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I'd certainly disagree here. In a normal election cycle yeah, sure, but this is a vote on the war and the declining economy. The country as a whole is getting tired and democrats have been voting in record numbers. It's very naive to think that those numbers are going to just stay home now ( oh gee, only Hillary could solve this mess, might as well stay at home - that's insulting. Oh gee, Hillary lost, only McCain can solve this mess is equally as insulting. Plus I think more republicans would have voted against Hillary due to the Clinton name. Apparently I'm reading different conservative boards than you are here ) that Hillary lost. It's about being fed up with the status quo not pro any candidate at this point. I just don't see a huge fallout no matter which candidate would have won the nomination.

If voters are disillusioned because they feel mistreated by their own party or they feel their candidate has been mistreated (whether legitimate or not), then hell yeah, I can see them staying home. Nothing stings worse than a perceived slight/insult from a supposed ally. Like I said, a lot will depend on how Obama and the party deal with Hillary leading up to the convention. And as I have also said, if Hillary doesn't get what she wants, I easily could see her endorsing McCain out of spite.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If voters feel disillusioned or feel they've been treated badly or their candidate has been treated badly by their party (whether legitimate or not) then hell yeah, I can see them staying home. Nothing stings worse than a perceived slight/insult from a supposed ally. Like I said, a lot will depend on how Obama and the party deal with Hillary leading up to the convention. And as I have also said, if Hillary doesn't get what she wants, I could actually see her endorsing McCain in spite.

Hillary WON'T endorse McCain. She's already seeing the grief Liebermann is getting. She just won't campaign for him.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by panerd

They lost an awful lot of seats. I think they lost every single close senate and house election. (Obviously some areas are GOP and Dem strongholds where the other side will never win) Missouri was solidly Bush and GOP territory in '00 and '04 and McKaskill won in '06. I didn't mean to say they won a huge majority of the senate, I mean they won every possible seat they should of won and most of the ones that they had a chance on.

I used to work with a guy who was far more extremely republican than anyone here, even Jon. He was a nice guy but out there.

We had a friendly ( I thought ) bet about that election. I said the democrats would win the house but not the senate and he said the democrats wouldn't win either.

Well, that night, after Fox called both chambers democrat I went up to him and wanted to be very conciliatory.

I said "man, hard night tonight. Looks like things went different than either of us thought."

"It's not over yet."



"Come on, it's over. Fox just called it."

"You can't believe the liberal media."

I'd never heard Fox called liberal before.

"I'm reading (some conservative blogger I'd never heard of ) and he's saying that the exit polling is way closer than everyone else is posting. It looks like we're actually going to pick up some seats in the senate and could still keep the house."

"Dude, everyone is saying it's over. I've read republican leaders say it's over."

"Get out of here. You're only trying to agitate me."

We never spoke on politics or about the bet ever again. Nice guy but that was a HUGE wow moment.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If voters are disillusioned because they feel mistreated by their own party or they feel their candidate has been mistreated (whether legitimate or not), then hell yeah, I can see them staying home. Nothing stings worse than a perceived slight/insult from a supposed ally. Like I said, a lot will depend on how Obama and the party deal with Hillary leading up to the convention. And as I have also said, if Hillary doesn't get what she wants, I easily could see her endorsing McCain out of spite.

NO, she'd never do that but I agree she aced herself into the picture with the preemptive strike on the vp situation. It's going to look bad if he doesn't give it to her now.

Then again, anyone who would vote against their beliefs simply for spite, well, that's when I agree with Jon, those people deserve whatever they get.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Hillary WON'T endorse McCain. She's already seeing the grief Liebermann is getting. She just won't campaign for him.

I don't think she'd campaign for McCain unless she endorsed him. That'd be odd.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Axxon - this election, like all general elections, will not be determined by Democrats or Republicans. It will be determined by independents. If the independents turn against Obama, he will lose. Likewise, if the independents turn against McCain, he will lose.

I have to admit that I am not caught up with the minutiae of the demographics of this election yet, so it could be the case that independents will matter this year.

However, election strategy (especially on the Republican side) in the last 15 years had very little to do with convincing independent voters to vote for you. Simply put, the keystone strategy was turnout management: target the voters that were already ideologically inclined to vote for you and convince them to turn out to vote. The idea here was that it was more efficient and that there was more to gain by engaging your pre-existing base rather than to take the extra (and often wasted) step of having to convince undecideds and those already inclined to vote for the opponent.

[Flasch186]

there is no way in heck she'll campaign for anyone except Obama....Period.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sorry Cronin, but his best (and only real) hope is to be "not Obama". If it depends on being McCain, he's a dead duck.

I dunno. I keep looking at the two of them and thinking "I wonder if this is what it was like when Nixon ran against Kennedy." I just wonder if the stark contrast in appearance and speaking styles might not end up being more powerful than McCain thinks it will be.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Axxon

NO, she'd never do that but I agree she aced herself into the picture with the preemptive strike on the vp situation. It's going to look bad if he doesn't give it to her now.

Then again, anyone who would vote against their beliefs simply for spite, well, that's when I agree with Jon, those people deserve whatever they get.

I'm not saying it's likely to happen...but I could see her doing it.

As for McCain, except for his position on the war (which bascially mirrors Hillary's campaign position), he's pretty much a Democrat in what he supports...so if any moderate Democrats vote for him, I don't really see it as a vote against their beliefs.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I dunno. I keep looking at the two of them and thinking "I wonder if this is what it was like when Nixon ran against Kennedy." I just wonder if the stark contrast in appearance and speaking styles might not end up being more powerful than McCain thinks it will be.

Wow, Nixon/Kennedy. Wonder why no one has brought that up yet??

[Kodos]

After the torture of the past 8 years, any Democrat who doesn't vote for Obama deserves what they get.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by panerd

I remember people debating that the '06 elections were actually going to be close (no way they lose the senate) and the GOP got their asses handed to them. While I am of the opinion that the Democrats didn't do anything about Iraq I think most of the country still blames this on Bush 100% and think a Democratic president will get us out of Iraq. While I can't say that I want Obama (or McCain either) to win. I think on Iraq alone ('100 years' will be an ad that we see a whole lot) Obama wins in a landslide.

Well, some bright Republican campaign aid could mention to his candidate that gasoline prices are up nearly $2.00 per gallon on average since the Democrats took control of Congress.

and as far as my first presidential campaign ad....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4FD-j_Dqq8

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Maybe its just because I've been a McCain fan for a long time, going back to before 2000, but I just don't see this at all. He's not a particularly polished speaker when reading, but he has terrific presence when he's unscripted - I would expect him to do well in a debate. Cantankerous old man, that sounds like Dole, Perot, maybe Bush 41, but it doesn't seem to describe McCain at all.

I had read this last night on the conservative board I posted from earlier.

Well, awhile back I made a post saying Mccain has it in the bag..I could not have been more wrong. Now I am starting to think it will take a miracle for him to win. Listening to his speech today was painful. He seemed really blah focusing more on distancing himself from Bush then he did trying to make himself an appealing candidate. I hate to say it but his speech which was kicking off the general election, you would think he would be pumped up, was borrrring and that is not going to appeal to voters when they see Obama making this MLK style speeches in front of thousands of loud fans. This general election is going to label Mccain as old and boring, and Obama as the new young popular guy with loads of energy and charisma.

I remember Mccain in the primary debates, he was so quick to attack the other republicans, yet now, he seems to be focusing on making friends with Obama rather than running against him, and it is going to backfire big time. I watched Obama's speech after and he spent a lot of time just ripping into Mccain, does old John think that its not going to hurt his chances to be talked about like that? I dont get it.

After todays speeches I thought back to when I went to a Romney rally in Long Beach. I couldn't help but think how much different Romney's speech would have been to kick off the GENERAL election. He would have showed energy, confidence, and excitement for being there ready to take on Obama in debate as soon as possible, wheras with Mccain I get the feeling he dreads going up against Obama.

It is what it is though, guess we will see what happens soon enough.

but today I also read this there.

Today I went and saw John McCain here in Reno. He spoke for about an hour and a half, and I have come to like him a lot more. He's still not my favorite, but I feel better about supporting him. Immigration, he could be better but I think a good VP can help wim with that. ANWR, I don't agree with him but he's leaning more towards alternate energy so that kind of makes up for that problem. He's dedicated to taking out spending and I am convinced that pork barrel spending will be gone i he's elected. He has some other good ideas, like making it harder to raise taxes, taking out the AMT (alternate minimum tax) and reducing another one. It ends up being like a $2,700 tax break. I am also convinced we would win the war on terror and our military would become stronger quiickly if he wins, something I really want to see happen quickly.
He also has conservative values, like overturning Roe v. Wade and appoining conservative justices who will protect traditional marriage and not let the constitution be ripped up into shreds. I feel better about supporting him an am not as hesitant to support him as I was.

So it looks like there's some debate on this issue but it can't be good to have this kind of divide on a board that literally only allows conservatives/republicans to post since these are the people who are supposed to like their candidates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

... the next guy is sharpening his knife waiting for you to finish so he can stick it to you.

That's why you don't ever let him get near a knife in the first place (not to mention why you make sure several guys with firearms are covering you while you're "negotiating").

that generally falls in the middle ranges

Clearly we disagree most strongly on that point.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Axxon - this election, like all general elections, will not be determined by Democrats or Republicans. It will be determined by independents. If the independents turn against Obama, he will lose. Likewise, if the independents turn against McCain, he will lose.

I respectfully disagree. The 2004 election came down more to Bush turning out GOP voters from previously untapped sources than any dominance among independents.

This election would appear to rely even more on each candidate's ability to consolidate and turn out his party's base. Traditional Democrats are fractured by a difficult primary; traditional Republicans are demoralized by defeat and the failed Bush presidency and concerned about a candidate that many believe doesn't sufficiently embrace social conservatism. If independents split fairly evenly, which seems very possible, whoever turns out their base best wins.

That favors Dems, because 1) our base is angrier about the status quo; and 2) our base is bigger.

[SFL Cat]

That's actually civil compared to some of the stuff I've seen going on between Obama and Clinton supporters on other boards.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's why you don't ever let him get near a knife in the first place (not to mention why you make sure several guys with firearms are covering you while you're "negotiating").



Clearly we disagree most strongly on that point.

Then they get guys with tanks to cover them while they're killing the guys with firearms. Yes, this is going to end well.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The GOP in fact lost the Senate by a tiny margin.

But the election was a butt-whoopin. In the Senate, 18 Dems were up (including Lieberman) and 15 GOP senators. Dems (and affiliated independents) won 24, GOP won 9. The national vote in all races went 56% to 42%. That is not a close election.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's not about the labels, they're merely a convenient shorthand. It's about the principles that each are attached to. And there's too many instances where the two have distinct separations for me to find credible anyone who can't find enough to distinguish which camp they fall into more closely.

I'm not remotely suggesting that there's some need for a 100% match (remember, I'm adamantly pro-choice), but damned if I can understand how anyone can't find a reasonably consistent leaning toward which one is more compatible with their own priorities ... or at least damned if I can take very seriously anyone who can't.

I think its because candidates do, surprisingly, distinguish themselves within a party at times. Clinton (Bill) may have more ideas that a voter agrees with than does Dole, however Bush may have more ideas that a voter agrees with than Gore. I don't have specific examples or personal opinions that necessarily match up with this, I just imagine it is possible. Personally, I would vote on one issue over any other this election cycle (gaining voting rights), but I don't see many major issues changing based on the candidate that is elected. We're in Iraq no matter who gets in -- we may pull out earlier with a Democrat, but I don't think the difference will be that large. They'll both spend a lot. Republicans may try to give us more money back even though they keep raising their budget. [shrug]

I won't be happy with politics until we're out of the two party system.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

That's actually civil compared to some of the stuff I've seen going on between Obama and Clinton supporters on other boards.

Are you talking about what I posted?

That site has a republican only and democrat only board and the democrat board is very not civil about Obama vs Clinton but in fairness, McCain isn't vs anybody yet so there's no reason for that heated a discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Wow, Nixon/Kennedy. Wonder why no one has brought that up yet??

With all this Nixon/Kennedy talk, I keep thinking that Obama has to pick Clinton to keep it going. Kennedy took LBJ and they hated each other from the primary battle.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We disagree. The best scenario for compromise is with your knee in your opponent's chest and your knife at his throat. That's an acceptable compromise, anything less is nothing more than putting a shine on failure.

That's why we love you, JimGA. How you manage to stay married with this philosophy is one of life's delightful mysteries.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

With all this Nixon/Kennedy talk, I keep thinking that Obama has to pick Clinton to keep it going. Kennedy took LBJ and they hated each other from the primary battle.

Yes, and get mayor Daley's aupport wouldn't hurt either.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Are you talking about what I posted?

That site has a republican only and democrat only board and the democrat board is very not civil about Obama vs Clinton but in fairness, McCain isn't vs anybody yet so there's no reason for that heated a discussion.

Yes it was.

As for McCain, he still has a lot of ground to cover to win over the party's conservatives. Touting his willingness to sell out his party to side with Democrats time after time doesn't win him many brownie points ....

Personally, I don't think its a very smart strategy..."I think I'll flip off people who are more than likely to vote for me to score points with people who wouldn't vote for me if I was the last guy on earth"...but, what do I know?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

With all this Nixon/Kennedy talk, I keep thinking that Obama has to pick Clinton to keep it going. Kennedy took LBJ and they hated each other from the primary battle.

True...and a lot of the conspiracy theories have LBJ involved in the plot to assassinate JFK. One more thing to consider before asking Hillary to be his VP.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

How you manage to stay married with this philosophy is one of life's delightful mysteries.

My wife would definitely agree

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Yes it was.

As for McCain, he still has a lot of ground to cover to win over the party's conservatives. Touting his willingness to sell out his party to side with Democrats time after time doesn't win him many brownie points ....

Personally, I don't think its a very smart strategy..."I think I'll flip off people who are more than likely to vote for me to score points with people who wouldn't vote for me if I was the last guy on earth"...but, what do I know?

It's rough. There aren't enough members of his base to win without more moderate votes ( the ones without knees on their chests and knives to their throats that is ) and there's no way he gets those in this climate by appealing to his base.

Since he's polling higher than many thought he would kinda shows he's not making a horrible choice.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

True...and a lot of the conspiracy theories have LBJ involved in the plot to assassinate JFK. One more thing to consider before asking Hillary to be his VP.

Not seriously but last night that thought crossed my mind.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Not seriously but last night that thought crossed my mind.

Seriously...what's to keep some crazed backwoods bigot who decides no *unkind word for a person of color* is going to be my president? I'm sure Hillary's first action as president would be to appoint Bill to the head of some commission to get to the bottom of this horrible tragedy.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Seriously...what's to keep some crazed backwoods bigot who decides no *unkind word for a person of color* is going to be my president? I'm sure Hillary's first action as president would be to appoint Bill to the head of some commission to get to the bottom of this horrible tragedy.

Remember Eddie Murphy's bit on the first black president?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Seriously...what's to keep some crazed backwoods bigot who decides no *unkind word for a person of color* is going to be my president? I'm sure Hillary's first action as president would be to appoint Bill to the head of some commission to get to the bottom of this horrible tragedy.

Actually, that's a great reason to pick Hillary. NO way a crazed backwoods bigot is going to want Hillary as prez.

[SFL Cat]

You've got a point...

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Axxon

It's rough. There aren't enough members of his base to win without more moderate votes ( the ones without knees on their chests and knives to their throats that is ) and there's no way he gets those in this climate by appealing to his base.

Since he's polling higher than many thought he would kinda shows he's not making a horrible choice.

Obviously, he doesn't have to worry about these voters going to Clinton or Obama, but he does have to worry about them throwing up their hands, staying home, and letting things fall where they may.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Obviously, he doesn't have to worry about these voters going to Clinton or Obama, but he does have to worry about them throwing up their hands, staying home, and letting things fall where they may.

Yes, but those people hate Clinton and would be far more motivated to get to the polls to vote against her than they will to get out to vote against Obama IMHO.

[Sgran]

I voted for Obama in the poll, but the truth is I have no idea where this election is going. Obama has the "anybody else" vote, but I think there is still a lot of racism in America. And don't forget how historic Obama's run is: he wouldn't just be the first elected black American president, he would be the first elected black head of state in any white country anywhere. Ever.
In fact, I'm pretty sure he would be the first elected minority head of state in a white country.
If i were one of his campaign strategists, I would suggest starting to invite the Dwayne Johnsons, Vin Diesels and other high profile mullatos on the campaign just to give those middle class white voters the hint that "hey, actually Obama isn't really black, he's just half black, like Jason Kidd. or tiger woods. That's not so bad."

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Wow, Nixon/Kennedy. Wonder why no one has brought that up yet??

I'm sure someone has. I'm sure lots of someones have.

That's just what came to mind for me when I read Jon's comment is all.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Kodos

After the torture of the past 8 years, any Democrat who doesn't vote for Obama deserves what they get.

+1

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm sure someone has. I'm sure lots of someones have.

That's just what came to mind for me when I read Jon's comment is all.

I was just teasing because I'd just mentioned it shortly upthread. That's all.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Sgran

I voted for Obama in the poll, but the truth is I have no idea where this election is going. Obama has the "anybody else" vote, but I think there is still a lot of racism in America. And don't forget how historic Obama's run is: he wouldn't just be the first elected black American president, he would be the first elected black head of state in any white country anywhere. Ever.
In fact, I'm pretty sure he would be the first elected minority head of state in a white country.
If i were one of his campaign strategists, I would suggest starting to invite the Dwayne Johnsons, Vin Diesels and other high profile mullatos on the campaign just to give those middle class white voters the hint that "hey, actually Obama isn't really black, he's just half black, like Jason Kidd. or tiger woods. That's not so bad."

Or half black like, I don't know, Barack Obama.

You do realize his mother is white right?

Ann Dunham and her son Barack -



EDIT - ok, I see what you were saying but I'm leaving the picture up because it's a good one.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Yes, but those people hate Clinton and would be far more motivated to get to the polls to vote against her than they will to get out to vote against Obama IMHO.

That is the real conundrum that Obama faces. Do you take HRC as your VP to ensure her supporters turn out for you, but then acquire all the baggage the Clintons bring along; or do you pick someone else, making a clean break from the Clinton/Bush era but risking losing a significant portion of her supporters.

[DaddyTorgo]

FWIW on McCain - my father met with Mitt Romney a couple weeks back on business, and while they were preparing to shoot the video (for Bain Consulting's big birthday bash), they were talking politics.

Romney (who is universally acknowledged as a masterful speaker and persuasive person) said of Obama: "He's got it. No doubt about it. Unless he blows himself up, he's got it."

And when talking about McCain he said something to the effect of: "Poor John. Nice guy, but he can't read a teleprompter to save his life. Did you see his speech the other day? I read that speech in advance...he missed at least 75% of his great lines that were written into it because he can't follow the teleprompter."

I surmise that something like this may be why McCain would like to push the town-hall style debates - to play to his strength and get soundbites out of them instead of out of stilted, prepared speeches that he fumbles around in.