Obama at 53%, Pulling Away from McCain

A majority of American likely voters seem to have realized that John McCain simply is not the man to lead the nation. According to The Washington Post, Obama now leads McCain by 53% to 43%, a ten-point spread. And this represents clear progress for Obama in convincing undecideds, Republicans and Independents, while McCain is moving backwards.

By Anne E. Kornblut and Jon Cohen,Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 13, 2008; Page A01

With just over three weeks until Election Day, the two presidential nominees appear to be on opposite trajectories, with Sen. Barack Obama gaining momentum and Sen. John McCain stalled or losing ground on a range of issues and personal traits, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. WaPost

Overall, Obama is leading 53 percent to 43 percent among likely voters, and for the first time in the general-election campaign, voters gave the Democrat a clear edge on tax policy and providing strong leadership.

Conservatives Losing Confidence in McCain?

It seems as though some conservatives have lost hope and faith in John McCain. David Broder, a fairly conservative columnist at the Washington Post is pretty much endorsing Barack Obama, by pointing out that even many Republicans find Obama's leadership on the economy more credible than McCain's.

I was struck by the survey of economists reported in the current issue of
the Economist, the London newsmagazine that covers America so well. It found much greater confidence in the economic views and advisers of Obama than McCain. The 142 respondents included far more Democrats than Republicans. But even among Republicans, the Obama team was rated superior -- and among the unaffiliated, the choice was overwhelming. WaPost

And George Will said a few weeks ago that:

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential
candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too
high. And it's not Barack Obama. WaPost

They're referring to McCain as "childish" and "untethered".

McCain's V.P. Pick Wants Alaska to Secece from the United States

Secession: That's the way to bring the country together.

By Paul.

It’s time that we discuss Sarah Palin’s associations.

What would Sean Hannity say if Michelle Obama was a member of a political party, for seven years, that advocated separating Illinois from the United States of America and whose founder talked about once professed his “hatred for the American government” and cursed the American flag as a “damn flag”?
Don’t you think he’d be on that subject night after night after night?

And what would Bill O’Reilly shout (he never just talks) if Barack Obama had attended a number of meetings of this hypothetical political party while being an elected official?
O’Reilly’s head would explode and cover our TV screens is gooey red mush.

But not so for the woman who will be a better VP than Thomas Jefferson AND John Adams (or so it seems).

The founder of the Alaska Independence Party — a group that has been courted over the years by Sarah Palin, and one her husband was a member of for roughly seven years — once professed his “hatred for the American government” and cursed the American flag as a “damn flag.”

More at the AfroSpear and Afrosphere Action Coalition's BlackPerspective.Net

Palin Billed Rape Victims for Rape Kits and Forensic Exams

The New York Times reports,

Even in tough budget times, there are lines that cannot be crossed. So I was startled by this tidbit reported recently by The Associated Press: When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the small town began billing sexual-assault victims for the cost of rape kits and forensic exams. NYTimes

Sarah Palin Can't Answer Basic Questions About John McCain's Talking Points

As African American Political Pundit points out, the above Katie Couric/Sarah Palin interview shows that Palin cannot answer even the most basic questions about John McCain's foremost talking points. For example, Katie Couric asks as her last question:

Couric: I'm going to ask you one last time. Name one thing John McCain has done to increase regulations on the banking industry.

Palin: I'm going to have to get back to you on that.

Agent X Says Obama Won the First Presidential Debate

AgentX has left a new comment on your post "The First Obama McCain Debate is Victory for Georg...":

Me and the Pundit were talking about this on the Political Slugfest [online radio talk show] last night and it's pretty much a win for Obama. The CNN and CBS undecided voter polls show a clear swing to Obama.

McCain was not on his game tonight. He came across as uncalm, angry, and condescending. And this was his strong suit. I shudder to think how he's gonna do on Domestic Policy (surge of troops in the hood, remember that?? I hope the moderator brings that up) and Economy (the last topic I think). More people now trust Obama on Foreign Policy than McCain. Tonight and that Katic Couric interview by Palin have cost McCain huge points in the pollz. If you trust the pollz that is.

I'm not taking chances. I already registered absentee.

The First Obama McCain Debate is Victory for George W. Bush

I watched the first Obama/McCain debate. McCain said over and over again, in a Reagan-like fashion, "I think you just don't understand", in an attempt to drive home his thesis that Obama would lack experience.

The problem is, and everybody knows it, that McCain got us into the Iraq War and now he has no plan to get us out. He ignores the Afghanistan war, even though it's killing more us US soldiers than Iraq is now.

And McCain wants to expand the wars in the Middle East. McCain did a great job of expressing his undying support for Israel, without stating explicitly that that would lead him into war with Iran. But it would, and has top adviser, Douglas Holz-Eakin, has said as much.

The following is from the Truth About McCain blog, citing the Financial Times:

Would John McCain's election result in perpetual war in Iraq and elsewhere? Well, just look at what John McCain's chief adviser has to say about that. John McCain's chief policy adviser is Douglas Holz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, heads the Greenberg Centre for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and here's what he says about the loss of Americans lives and the economic cost of the war:

[T]he current and future budget cost and loss of life and health probably give the right magnitude. If so, the annual war bill represents only about one cent of the $12,000bn of national income each year, and the total military cost at most, a nickel. And that is the right lesson: the foundation of US international influence is its large, powerful economy which can absorb the narrow, resource costs of war and free the US to pursue strategic [WAR, WAR, WAR] and security goals. FinancialTimes.Com (emphasis added)

John McCain is always wrong about Iraq, and his errors are very dangerous. As when,

. . . he said the war would be "brief" and be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. Or as he was in the 1990s, when he championed extravagant State Department funding for the war instigator Ahmad Chalabi, who'd already been branded untrustworthy by the C.I.A. (The relationship between Mr. Chalabi and the former lobbyist Charles Black, now a chief McCain campaign strategist, is explored in a new book, "The Man Who Pushed America to War," by Aram Roston.) NYTimes

Read the whole article. With McCain's chief adviser's reasoning, we can expect even more wars like the one in Iraq under a McCain Administration, since the Iraq War continues to be such a great bargain for America, both in terms of loss of life and expense to the US Treasury.

Meanwhile, Obama also knocked down on of McCain's (and all Republicans') chief criticisms of Democrats, as being pacifists unwilling to fight wars that are necessary for American security. Basically, the only thing a Democratic candidate has to do to win on this count is point out a country where he IS determined to fight a war, and show determination about it. Obama met the test.

McCain has been in Washington 22 years, watching the country get into the mess that it's in now, and providing some critical votes and support to this mess along the way, 90% of the time.

Between McCain and the battery of lobbyists that run his campaign, they probably have hundreds of years of experience - fleecing the American taxpayer on behalf of the rich and well-connected.

Americans want change and, precisely because McCain is so entrenched in the lobbyist merry-go-round, we know we will not get that change from John McCain.

If voters want another four years of George W. Bush, whom McCcain supports 90% of the time, then voters will support McCain, to continue the Bush legacy. If voters want change, clearly it's Barack Obama who offers change.