The Next President of the USA will be?

[Hermit_]

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...l_tracking_poll

It's the same fucking story but reverse. it's bizaro polling

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll; Monday, July 21, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 42% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. That’s the lowest level of support measured for Obama since he clinched the Democratic Presidential nomination on June 3. Obama’s support peaked at 48% with data released on June 8, 9, and 10. During that same time frame, McCain’s support has remained steady in the 40% to 42% range (he’s had just one day a point below that range and two days a point above it).

[i cleaned it up for you. Font sizes is an art form that you clearly haven't mastered. ]

Story #1 [posted by Hermit]: Obama leads McCain by 6%

Story #2 [posted by Pipeboy]: Obama leads McCain by 1%

Pb: "It's the same story but in reverse". [huh? ]

Ok, ok,.. yes, I know what you're really getting at, friend. You're talking about the "lowest level of support" measure. That's a somewhat fair enough point to make since one poll [Rasmussen] shows Obama with his lowest level of support, and the other poll [Gallup] shows McCain with his lowest level of support.

But,.. as always,.. the devil's in the details, muh-man. Please note that according to the Rasmussen poll, Obama is at his lowest point since he clinched the dem nomination [on June 4th].. ie, in the past ONE AND A HALF months; whereas according to the Gallup poll, McCain is at his lowest point since Gallup began tracking 'general election preferences' [in March].. ie, in the past FOUR AND A HALF months. Do you grasp the nuance I'm gettin' at there, bro?

It is a certain.. that McCain is hurtin. Whereas Obama is going good and strong..

as is evidenced by our "P-51-sanctioned" poll compilation source: realclearpolitics.com. -->

*Source: RealClearPolitics.com*

I highlighted the Rasmussen poll in green for ya, Pb, so you know its been included

in the clean sweep of polls showing Obama leading McCain from anywhere between

1% [not surprisingly that's the poll you cited] and 9%.. with an average lead of 4.7%

Yes indeed,.. the polls are looking "up" again for Obama!

This is an interesting graphic too:

*State-by-state ELECTORAL COLLEGE BREAKDOWN*

Barack Obama: 255 [153 Solid; 102 Leaning]

John McCain: 163 [90 Solid; 73 Leaning]

Toss Up: 120

(270 Electoral Votes Needed To Win)

[Hermit_]

.

Ouch.

Scathing.

And oh so.. well.. uhh..

(upcoming pun intended)..

right.. on.. the.. money!

Cheers, Frank!

-------------------------

*It’s the Economic Stupidity, Stupid*

By FRANK RICH

July 20, 2008

THE best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain’s response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl.

“In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his.

Mr. McCain still doesn’t understand that we can’t send troops to Afghanistan unless they’re shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined.

In 2000, he told an interviewer that he would make up for his lack of attention to “those issues.” As he entered the 2008 campaign, Mr. McCain was still saying the same, vowing to read “Greenspan’s book” as a tutorial. Last weekend, the resolutely analog candidate told The New York Times he is at last starting to learn how “to get online myself.” Perhaps he’ll retire his abacus by Election Day.

Mr. McCain’s fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated on video by whining about “a nation of whiners.” The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama’s connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings, no doubt to correct the candidate’s numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.

Just two weeks before publicly sharing his thoughts about America’s “mental recession,” Mr. Gramm laid out equally incendiary views in a Wall Street Journal profile that portrayed him as “almost certainly” the McCain choice for Treasury secretary. Mr. Gramm said that the former chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, was “probably the most exploited worker in American history” since he received only a $158 million pay package rather than the “billions” he deserved for his success in growing Southwestern Bell.

But no one in the news media seemed to notice Mr. Gramm’s naked expression of the mind-set he’d bring to a McCain White House. And few journalists have vetted the presumptive Treasury secretary’s post-Senate history as an executive at UBS. The stock of that banking giant has lost 70 percent of its value in a year after its reckless adventures in the subprime lending market. It’s now fending off federal investigation for helping the megarich avoid taxes.

Mr. McCain made a big show of banishing Mr. Gramm after his whining “gaffe,” but it’s surely at most a temporary suspension. When the candidate said back in January that there’s nobody he knows who is stronger on economic issues than his old Senate pal, he was telling the truth. Left to his own devices — or those of his new No. 1 economic surrogate, Carly Fiorina — Mr. McCain is clueless. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter, said that Mr. McCain’s latest panacea for high gas prices, offshore drilling, is snake oil — and then announced his availability to serve as energy czar in an Obama administration.

The term flip-flopping doesn’t do justice to Mr. McCain’s self-contradictory economic pronouncements because that implies there’s some rational, if hypocritical, logic at work. What he serves up instead is plain old incoherence, as if he were compulsively consulting one of those old Magic 8 Balls. In a single 24-hour period in April, Mr. McCain went from saying there’s been “great economic progress” during the Bush presidency to saying “Americans are not better off than they were eight years ago.” He reversed his initial condemnation of mortgage bailouts in just two weeks.

In February Mr. McCain said he would balance the federal budget by the end of his first term even while extending the gargantuan Bush tax cuts. In April he said he’d accomplish this by the end of his second term. In July he’s again saying he’ll do it in his first term. Why not just say he’ll do it on Inauguration Day? It really doesn’t matter since he’s never supplied real numbers that would give this promise even a patina of credibility.

Mr. McCain’s plan for Social Security reform is “along the lines that President Bush proposed.” Or so he said in March. He came out against such “privatization” in June (though his policy descriptions still support it). Last week he indicated he isn’t completely clear on what Social Security does. He called the program’s premise — young taxpayers foot the bill for their elders (including him) — an “absolute disgrace.”

Given that Mr. McCain’s sole private-sector job was a fleeting stint in public relations at his father-in-law’s beer distributorship, he comes by his economic ignorance honestly. But there’s no A team aboard the Straight Talk Express to fill him in. His campaign economist, the former Bush adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, could be found in the June 5 issue of American Banker suggesting even at that late date that we still don’t know “the depth of the housing crisis” and proposing that “monitoring is the right thing to do in these circumstances.”

Ms. Fiorina, the ubiquitous new public face of McCain economic policy, adds nothing to the mix beyond her incessant display of corporate jargon, from “trend lines” to “start-ups.” Before she was fired at Hewlett-Packard, its stock had declined 50 percent during her five-plus years in charge. She missed earning projections — by 23 percent in one quarter — much as she now misrepresents both the Obama and McCain records. This month she said Mr. McCain wanted to require insurance plans to cover birth control medications along with Viagra, when in fact he had voted against it.

Ms. Fiorina received a $42 million payout (half in cash) from H.P., according to a shareholders’ subsequent lawsuit. With this inspiring résumé, she now aspires to be Mr. McCain’s running mate. So does the irrepressible Mitt Romney, who actually was a business whiz before serving as Massachusetts’s governor. Beltway wisdom has it that the addition of such a corporate star will remedy Mr. McCain’s fiscal flatulence.

But Mr. Romney, while more plausible than Ms. Fiorina, is hardly what America wants at this desperate time. His leveraged buyout dealings as co-founder of Bain Capital induced plant closings, mass layoffs and outsourcing. If Mr. McCain truly intends to “put our country’s interests” above politics and reach across the aisle to move the nation forward, as he constantly tells us, why not go for a vice president who’s the very best fit for the huge challenges at hand?

The obvious choice would be Michael Bloomberg — who, as a former Republican turned independent, would necessitate that Mr. McCain reach only halfway across the aisle, and to someone who is his friend rather than a vanquished rival he is learning to tolerate.

Romney vs. Bloomberg is not a close contest. Bloomberg L.P. has roughly three times the revenues and employees of Bain & Company, where Mr. Romney ultimately served as chief executive. Mr. Romney rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics while running it in 2002, but Mayor Bloomberg revitalized New York, the nation’s largest metropolis, after the most devastating attack in our history. The city he manages has more than twice the budget of Mr. Romney’s state.

Yes, Mr. Bloomberg is a closet Democrat and an alpha dog who doesn’t want to be a second banana. And his views on gay civil rights and abortion would roil the G.O.P. base. But Mr. Romney shared some of those same views before he flip-flopped, and besides, these are not ordinary times. Millions of Americans are losing their homes and jobs. Whole industries are going belly up. The national crisis at hand, not yesterday’s culture wars, should drive the vice-presidential pick.

Mr. McCain reminds us every day how principled he is. That presumably means he’d risk a revolt by his party’s dwindling agents of intolerance and do everything in his power to persuade Mr. Bloomberg to join his ticket in the spirit of patriotic sacrifice. The politics could be advantageous too. A Bloomberg surprise could impress independents and keep the television audience tuned in to a G.O.P. convention that will unfold in the shadow of Mr. Obama’s address to 75,000 screaming fans in Denver.

But this is fantasy political baseball, not reality. Mr. McCain, sad to say, hung up his old maverick’s spurs the day he embraced the Bush tax cuts he had once opposed as “too tilted to the wealthy.” And Mr. Bloomberg? It’s hard to picture a titan who built his empire on computer terminals investing any capital, political or otherwise, in a chief executive who is still learning how to do, as Mr. McCain puts it, “a Google.”

-------------------------

[the original article has imbedded hyperlinks to fact-sources

that back up the many claims made throughout the piece. ]

It's becoming apparent to more and more people that

John McCain.. the emperor-wanna-be.. has no clothes.

[Hermit_]

There's a Whole Lotta satirizin' (and spoofin') goin' on.

Vanity Fair, July 22nd:

Jeff Danziger; July 16th:

David Horsey; July 15th:

[redrum]

ABC (American Barack Corporation)

CBS (Columbia Barack System)

NBC (National Barack Corporation)

MSNBC (Microsoft News Barack Company)

The media's messiah!

[Hermit_]

ABC (American Barack Corporation)

CBS (Columbia Barack System)

NBC (National Barack Corporation)

MSNBC (Microsoft News Barack Company)

The media's messiah!

Obama is a gift from the world to us.. in so many ways!

It kinda,.. well.. sends a tingle up your leg,.. don't it?!

[there's your set-up.. make good use of it. ]

[Pb Derigable]

ABC (American Barack Corporation)

CBS (Columbia Barack System)

NBC (National Barack Corporation)

MSNBC (Microsoft News Barack Company)

The media's messiah!

BET (Barack Entertainment Channel)

HBO (Home Barack Office)

The OC (Obama country)

[Pb Derigable]

Derigible, can you please define for me what 'winning this war' means to you?

Winning the war could mean a few things to different people.

1. The removal of Saddam and bringing a democracy to Iraq and to build up that nation so it can serve the world like other good nations and helps in the war against terror

2. Making sure Bush mistake does not come and bite us in the ass.

3. A strategic position in the Middle East to defend the United States from terrorist, rouge nations and the protect the oil supply of the world. (this what this means to me)

Even the most antibush person has to agree that no.2 must be done. If Bush has done Obama so wrong, he must make sure that this war does not bite us in the ass. If this is truly the worst president ever, if the next one does not protect us from his mistakes, he'll be the worst of all time based on the fact he knows whats wrong and could not solve it. Bush did not know about 9/11 and his actions have been faulty according to some, so if the next guy knows whats wrong and refuse to solve it, he is twice as bad as Bush.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

[Pb Derigable]

ABC (American Barack Corporation)

CBS (Columbia Barack System)

NBC (National Barack Corporation)

MSNBC (Microsoft News Barack Company)

The media's messiah!

BET (Barack Entertainment Channel)

HBO (Home Barack Office)

The OC (Obama country)

TBS (The Barack Station)

[Pb Derigable]

Obama did not want his campiagn to pay for vist to injured Troops?

Fox news http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/24/ob...ops-in-germany/

Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that the Illinois senator opted not to visit U.S. troops at military facilities in Germany because it would be “inappropriate” to make such a stop on the campaign-funded leg of his trip.

The German magazine Der Spiegel reported earlier that Obama canceled a visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a military hospital in Germany, and the Ramstein Air Base.

The report came as Obama prepared to speak to thousands at a high-profile address in Berlin.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement saying Obama originally wanted to visit troops at Landstuhl to “express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice,” and noted that he already visited troops in Iraq while he was part of an official congressional delegation.

But he said the second leg of Obama’s trip was different.

“The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign,” Gibbs said.

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, “Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military.”

McCain’s Senate colleague Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also took a shot at Obama.

“I noticed that Obama had plenty of time to shoot hoops … but he didn’t have the time to stop by (the Ramstein base),” he told FOX News.

[cryingbluerain]

Hate to rain on the Obama fantasy parade here but sounds like JM hit it right on the head: "I'd love to give a speech in Germany. But I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United States rather than as a candidate for president". A bit presumptuous indeed..

CNN Reporters: Obama "Presumptuous" & Negotiations Overstep His Authority as a Senator

Last night on Anderson Cooper 360, two CNN political analysts charged that Senator Obama overstepped his authority as a United States Senator in acting as a negotiator with the Iraqi government and publicly disclosing statements made during those interviews.

During an interview with Anderson Cooper, David Gergen, CNN's Senior Political Analyst stated, "Barack Obama made the first mistake of his trip, in my judgment, in releasing a statement in which he said exactly what Maliki had said in those conversations.

We have a long tradition in this country that we only have one president at a time. He's the commander in chief and the negotiator in chief. I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that's under way with another party outside the country.

I think he leaves himself open to the charge tonight that he's meddling, that this is not his role, that he can be the critic, but he's not the negotiator. We have a president who does that. So, I think the underlying facts support him, but I think it would be a real mistake -- and I think it was a mistake -- to get into these conversations and let it be used politically. "

Gergens comments were later echoed by a second CNN Analyst, Gloria Borger, who charged, "I do agree with David. And Candy, in her earlier piece, talked about walking the fine line between being this candidate and being presumptuous. And I think that he may just have crossed that, because, you know, it is a tradition. You don't talk about these private conversations. And it's not up to Barack Obama right now to negotiate troop withdrawals. It's up to Barack Obama to be on a fact-finding mission, which is indeed what he has said he was on. "

Gergen and Borger have it right, Senator Obama is not the President and in fact is not even the official presidential nominee of his party. Obama's trip to Iraq is a taxpayer funded "Fact-Finding" mission in which he has no authority granted to him by congress nor the administration to engage in negotiations. His actions yesterday were indeed 'presumptuous' and violated his duties as a United States Senator.

The President of The United States is responsible for the course of foreign policy, and although Obama has the right to question or criticize that foreign policy, he has no constitutional authority to act in a negotiative role with foreign dignitaries.

The current administration is in ongoing negotiations with the Iraqi government concerning the role of US forces in assisting that government; a government that has been strengthened by a 'surge' that Barack Obama opposed and claimed would fail. Obama overstepped his role as a Senator and potentially undermined ongoing negotiations by engaging in diplomatic negotiations for his political gain.

Obama actions yesterday should be condemned by other members of congress, just as former President Carter's actions in Palestine earlier this year were condemned by congressional members. Obama is not the President and he is on a taxpayer funded fact-finding mission. Senator Obama's actions in Iraq yesterday clearly demonstrated his use of this trip for political purposes; the military should immediately pull funding for the trip and charge the Obama campaign for the millions of dollars that this overseas farce is costing.

No Congressional Member has the authority to engage in negotiations or dictate US foreign policy. Yesterday's actions show a clear arrogance and lack of respect for the office of the presidency and state department.

http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/...esumptuous.html

[Hermit_]

McLame: "I'd like to give a speech in Germany too, but.. I'm not good enough. "

Obama draws 200,000 for speech in Berlin while John

McCain draws "about a dozen" at German cafe in Ohio.

[RoundRobin]

Obama draws 200,000 for speech in Berlin while John

McCain draws "about a dozen" at German cafe in Ohio.

How many of those 200,000 are eligible to vote for him I wonder? There could be some absentee's in the crowd, but I'd say that for sure, a dozen possible votes in the US outweighs no votes from 200,000 Germans.

[Uncle Bill]

Even comedy central gets it. lol

[Uncle Bill]

How many of those 200,000 are eligible to vote for him I wonder? There could be some absentee's in the crowd, but I'd say that for sure, a dozen possible votes in the US outweighs no votes from 200,000 Germans.

I heard most of the people showed up for free beer and a free concert by popular reggae musician Patrice and the rock band Reamonn.

[Medhb]

Even comedy central gets it. lol

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Derigable....ahhh, I think you nailed that pretty good and I like option 3 as well.

Yes, I'm seeing the media bias, but that's why the internet and our ability to discuss these matters outside a spoon fed environment is critical!

Ooops! It does seem Barrack may have stepped outside his bounds in openly discussing his private talks. Still, all in all....I think what is gaining him so much media attention is that he is different! He seems like a breath of fresh air and his mediation approach is calming to those of us who fear the reprecussions of our past hasty aggression.

I won't compare him to JFK but his message is encouraging instead of fearful. I think we're all tired of living in an atmosphere of fear and hate and Barrack represents our original intent of being world leaders for Peace.

Of course, I'm not as informed as most who post here, that's one of the reasons I love the political threads so much.

[Medhb]

Unfrikkingbelievable!!!

Israeli paper publishes Obama's prayer

[cryingbluerain]

Obama did not want his campiagn to pay for vist to injured Troops?

Fox news http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/24/ob...ops-in-germany/

Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that the Illinois senator opted not to visit U.S. troops at military facilities in Germany because it would be “inappropriate” to make such a stop on the campaign-funded leg of his trip.

The German magazine Der Spiegel reported earlier that Obama canceled a visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a military hospital in Germany, and the Ramstein Air Base.

The report came as Obama prepared to speak to thousands at a high-profile address in Berlin.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement saying Obama originally wanted to visit troops at Landstuhl to “express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice,” and noted that he already visited troops in Iraq while he was part of an official congressional delegation.

But he said the second leg of Obama’s trip was different.

“The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign,” Gibbs said.

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, “Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military.”

McCain’s Senate colleague Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also took a shot at Obama.

“I noticed that Obama had plenty of time to shoot hoops … but he didn’t have the time to stop by (the Ramstein base),” he told FOX News.

Obama's cancellation of a military hospital visit leaves unanswered questions

(excerpt)

"Sen. Obama is more than welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital around the world," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. "But he has to do so, just as any other senator has to do so, in his official capacity. It is not acceptable to do so as a candidate."

"In an election year," Morrell said, "I don’t believe that any candidate is allowed to visit a DOD facility with press."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...-cancels-x.html

So in other words since no press was allowed BO decided not visit the wounded soldiers because he wouldn't be able to capitalize on it as an election PR opportunity. Classy move..

[Medhb]

Obama's cancellation of a military hospital visit leaves unanswered questions

(excerpt)

"Sen. Obama is more than welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital around the world," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. "But he has to do so, just as any other senator has to do so, in his official capacity. It is not acceptable to do so as a candidate."

"In an election year," Morrell said, "I don’t believe that any candidate is allowed to visit a DOD facility with press."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...-cancels-x.html

So in other words since no press was allowed BO decided not visit the wounded soldiers because he wouldn't be able to capitalize on it as an election PR opportunity. Classy move..

I'm not making a call here but here's the other side of the coin

We can only wonder what the truth is...

[Pb Derigable]

So Obama flies out to the war zones on my dime, he just couldn't just see it for himself under his dime.

Than wants to do a speech in Germany, usually reserved for actual presidents.

During that speech, he claims he is not here as a person running for president, but as a citizen.

Bashes America, plays basketball, and skips the wounded troops because he didn't feel right about his campaign paying for it. (I thought he was here as a citizen only?)

Whats the kicker? He makes me pay for him to find more info on Iraq, but makes a policy statement before he leaves! So why did he go?

[Pb Derigable]

I'm not making a call here but here's the other side of the coin

We can only wonder what the truth is...

Than why not say that?

I wouldn't trust Lynn Sweet.

She one time wrote a full page article on how Michelle should be first lady becuase she makes her kids to go to bed at 9.

It was a quote from an Obama aide. (yes, i know Lynn Sweet is also a Obama Aide)

Still, if no pics were not to be taking, what would the point of a presidental canidate to vist wounded soliders?

Is this really a big story. No

But this does prove this whole trip was a photo OP.

[Medhb]

Than why not say that?

I wouldn't trust Lynn Sweet.

She one time wrote a full page article on how Michelle should be first lady becuase she makes her kids to go to bed at 9.

It was a quote from an Obama aide. (yes, i know Lynn Sweet is also a Obama Aide)

Still, if no pics were not to be taking, what would the point of a presidental canidate to vist wounded soliders?

Is this really a big story. No

But this does prove this whole trip was a photo OP.

And that's why I like this board! I didn't know Lynn Sweet was an Obama Aide. (Do you think that's as fun as being a Band Aid?! LOL!) Anyway, that brings up a question for me, which I'm sure you can answer: Do you think Obama would have even made this trip if McCain didn't practically goad him into it? Didn't he criticize Obama for not being over there for a few years so Obama up and went?

[Pb Derigable]

And that's why I like this board! I didn't know Lynn Sweet was an Obama Aide. (Do you think that's as fun as being a Band Aid?! LOL!) Anyway, that brings up a question for me, which I'm sure you can answer: Do you think Obama would have even made this trip if McCain didn't practically goad him into it? Didn't he criticize Obama for not being over there for a few years so Obama up and went?

If the guy was the head of his committee on Afghanistan and he never been there. If a guy, who completely opposes a war, and claims he know how to end the war, and hasn't been there in 900 days! Than if that same guy opponent questions why he hasn't been there and then he goes. I would assume yes, he only went because McCain questioned him on it.

If McCain did not question him on it, I don't think obama would since he won't pay to go see wounded troops.

[Medhb]

If the guy was the head of his committee on Afghanistan and he never been there. If a guy, who completely opposes a war, and claims he know how to end the war, and hasn't been there in 900 days! Than if that same guy opponent questions why he hasn't been there and then he goes. I would assume yes, he only went because McCain questioned him on it.

If McCain did not question him on it, I don't think obama would pay for it, since he won't pay to go see wounded troops.

I think there must be more to the not visiting the troops story. Like Obama or not, I think we can agree he's running a pretty good publicity campaign. If here were just there for the news story then I don't think he'd be so stupid as to skip out on that, especially when he had planned to go. I doubt it has a thing to do with money or photo ops. He's smarter than to even 'appear' that this could be the case....

[Pb Derigable]

I think there must be more to the not visiting the troops story. Like Obama or not, I think we can agree he's running a pretty good publicity campaign. If here were just there for the news story then I don't think he'd be so stupid as to skip out on that, especially when he had planned to go. I doubt it has a thing to do with money or photo ops. He's smarter than to even 'appear' that this could be the case....

I agree complety. He doing real good. Im surpise i haven't heard more bashing.

Now is he running a good presidential campaign? Im not sure on that one.

If McCain is too old and too wrong. If McCain will be the worst president third term. If the G.O.P. is worng about everthing and Obama is viewed as the second coming with more money.

Than why does Obama only has a 2% lead on McCain right now. Why is it not 20%

[Medhb]

I agree complety. He doing real good. Im surpise i haven't heard more bashing.

Now is he running a good presidential campaign? Im not sure on that one.

If McCain is too old and too wrong. If McCain will be the worst president third term. If the G.O.P. is worng about everthing and Obama is viewed as the second coming with more money.

Than why does Obama only has a 2% lead on McCain right now. Why is it not 20%

THAT is an excellent question. And surprising, since you're right - the press is certainly acting as if isn't even a race.