Support NeoGAF

[Stoney Mason]

For this to be possible, he'd have to get OH, CO, and VA.

Not to mention this is a very fluid situation and most predictors are indicating a tightening race.

 

[Odrion]

I think he meant that it shouldn't be this close. It should be a landslide because the last eight years have been a complete disaster. And yeah, it has gone up to where things were about four years ago.

The Obama campaign needs to take that little wood elf's message of "WAKE UP AMERICA, THE REPUBLICANS ARE FUCKING YOU."

 

[Frank the Great]

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure why MT can't go blue this year. Two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor? And the state's red?

The most important issue in Montana is gun control. Schweitzer and the Senators are all anti-gun control iirc.

Obama will have a tough time there.

 

[Gruco]

For seconds, the metaphor only has relevance to rape, so unless by adopting this argument, you are conceding that abortion for reasons other than rape are not justified, the use of the argument is wholly disingenuous.

The point is to grant the premise and see where it takes you. I don't know why that's disingenuous; along with reject the premise and reject that the conclusion flows from premise, it's just another way of discussing and exploring a contentious issue. You don't need to assume bad faith man. I'm not even trying to "win". I think I've said this before on other subjects, but sometimes you just wanna see where things go.

So that's kinda my point with the other thing (which was originally a joke, but hey). If we accept that a zygote has full legal rights to live and that the government does have the right to prohibit behavior which would kill it, then I'd see no reason not to accept the argument that the government has the right out outlaw sex. I'm sure you have a counterpoint spasm ready, but I'm curious to see what it is.

For thirds, the metaphor implies a lack of understanding of the right to life. It fully equates pulling the plug on a dying man (one who was connected to you without consent, see above) and stabbing the back of a fetus's head with surgical scissors, when these acts are not morally equivalent. A right to life does not mean that everyone everywhere has to go to unreasonable lengths to save you from death; it is freedom from aggressive efforts to end your life, enforced by the rule of law.

Yes! Now we are getting somewhere. See, this is a weird kind of unsaid assumption difference or something, because for the most part, I would say that if something has a right to life, it should be protected from death. I mean, I wouldn't imagine you think it's okay to extract a fetus before it can live on it's own and just set it on a table, or that it's okay to not feed a newborn and let it starve. But that's what I'd conclude from accepting the idea that just because something has the right to live doesn't mean people have to go out of their way to keep it alive. So surely people have to go so some lengths to prevent death. So how do you decide what is a reasonable length and what is an unreasonable length?

And yeah, the violist, who you are okay with killing, is not dying. The point is that the music lovers already made the call, regardless of whether they should have or not. So you can either kill him or suck it up for nine months.

In this case, the actions of the Society of Music Lovers society represent a multitude of aggressive violations of the victim's rights. This is in no way comparable to the actions of the child in utero, incapable of both aggression or culpability for its actions. Going back to the rape comparison, the child is also utterly devoid of culpability for the actions of its parents.

You're doing it wrong.

It's rapist:child::society:violinist

 

[Zeliard]

We hurt / kill animals regularly for food, sport, medical experimentation, etc. We buy and sell domesticated animals. You walk into a Petsmart, you give them the market worth of the animal, and you walk out with a hamster or whatever. They are property. If they're supposed to be invested with rights, then our entire society is guilty of travesty on a massive scale. I guess that's the PETA stance, and you're welcome to embrace it, but I'll have no part of it.

I don't believe in killing animals for sport, ever. It's completely ridiculous and cruel. As far as killing animals for food and medical experimentation, yes, but how many people who cook cats in an oven do so for sustinence? You seem to believe these people should get away scot-free, and that's what I take issue with.

Most domesticated pets like cats and dogs are also not bought - they are adopted from shelters, so there is no market value there to speak of.

 

[Forgotten_Taco]

Why is Wisconsin a tossup? There is really no polling proof of this.

Original map too liberal, this one's more balanced.

 

[AniHawk]

Montana's... weird.

Democratic governor, two Dem Senators, but voted for Bush 59-39.

And in the same election, they banned gay marriage and legalized medical marijuana? Is crazy a color?

The most important issue in Montana is gun control. Schweitzer and the Senators are all anti-gun control iirc.

Obama will have a tough time there.

Oh.

 

[Fragamemnon]

The electoral scene in Ohio for 2008 versus 2004 is quite a bit different. The Dems have since captured the key points in the state government (Governor, Secretary of State) relating to election and installed a set of extremely Democratic-friendly early voting and same-day voting registration laws. The economy is also worse in Ohio in 2008 than it was in 2004.

I know a lot of people have been looking at Colorado as the key tipping point this election and I don't disagree, but I think that Ohio is still the total tossup state that it was in 2004, with maybe a slightly more Dem-leaning tilt than that year.

 

[ViperVisor]

Glennzilla takes on the latest nonsense.
via Atrios

Olbermann and the LIBRUL media is the topic.

 

[CharlieDigital]

The most important issue in Montana is gun control. Schweitzer and the Senators are all anti-gun control iirc.

Obama will have a tough time there.

The gun control issue is so fucking crazy. "Yeah, I'll let you rape me on taxes and spend the shit out of the budget, but you ain't taking my guns away!"

They're more concerned about defending themselves against some bogeyman than worrying about you know, the actual issues that are vital to the long term prosperity and health of the nation like investment into scientific research, education, healthcare (even if you don't agree with Obama, fine, but cite that instead of gun control), etc. It boggles the mind to a degree that people are so emotional about one aspect of life to the degree that it clouds their assessment of the situation as a whole.

 

[Bulla564]

Republican talk radio hacks will not cry a tear if McCain loses, trust me. They'll be given total license to rail on "the government" and "the administration" for everything-no more tiptoeing or apologizing around Bush dumbassery anymore.

My election night is planned already (if anything, I will have friends over). Fox News will be on my TV, neogaf in my laptop, and any rightwing radio coverage on the radio.

The drinking game will be how many times Hannity or Rove talk about the "liberal media" helping to elect Obama.

 

[JayDubya]

I don't believe in killing animals for sport, ever. It's completely ridiculous and cruel. As far as killing animals for food and medical experimentation, yes, but how many people who cook cats in an oven do so for sustinence? You seem to believe these people should get away scot-free, and that's what I take issue with.

Okay, well, I think hunting is perfectly kosher. As for the Canadians that broke into a house and killed the family pet - see other thread.

Most domesticated pets like cats and dogs are also not bought - they are adopted from shelters, so there is no market value there to speak of.

Correction, they have no market value. $0.

 

[HylianTom]

My election night is planned already (if anything, I will have friends over). Fox News will be on my TV, neogaf in my laptop, and any rightwing radio coverage on the radio.

The drinking game will be how many times Hannity or Rove talk about the "liberal media" helping to elect Obama.

It's gonna be hysterical. I already have Wednesday and Thursday off of work, haha..

Edit: BTW, Bill Schneider just reported on CNN a new Opinion Research poll has Obama and McCain both tied at 48%. No link yet.

 

[Particle Physicist]

top stories on cnn:

Rollins: Obama should have picked Hillary
Ticker: When will Clinton attack Palin?
'Dems are in trouble,' ex-mayor says

 

[Cheebs]

New CNN poll has them tied at 48.


That alongside todays Rasmussen that has McCain ahead +1 and todays Hotline/Diego tracking poll that has them tied at 44 means.....


The only polling outlet that has McCain outside the margin of error is Gallup (in their daily tracking and their non-daily tracking results).

 

[tanod]

My election night is planned already (if anything, I will have friends over). Fox News will be on my TV, neogaf in my laptop, and any rightwing radio coverage on the radio.

The drinking game will be how many times Hannity or Rove talk about the "liberal media" helping to elect Obama.

I'm still trying to figure out my plans. I'm considering taking the day off.

Resistance 2 comes out November 4th but I also might do some volunteering and will probably want to watch election coverage too. ARGH!

 

[Cheebs]

I'm still trying to figure out my plans. I'm considering taking the day off.

Resistance 2 comes out November 4th but I also might do some volunteering and will probably want to watch election coverage too. ARGH!

The fate of this country or playing a video game the first day it's out...hmmmm. Hard to decide eh?

 

[soul creator]

Democrats aren't truly united, Biden's almost as bad as Dan Quayle, Palin is the best since Reagan, why does Obama hate Hillary?

(snarky paraphrase, but that's the basic gist)

 

[Gruco]

358 has Obama at 39% for Montana. It's an interesting state, mostly libertarian, but with a decent environmental streak. I'd say Schweitzer and Tester managed to win by combining those, for the most part. Obama has a shot.

It's definitely closer than MI, NH, NM or WI. They probably added those states just because of the close election/good rating phenomenon, or because they didn't want the McCain campaign yelling at them for showing them on defense in all battleground states.

 

[Cheebs]

Democrats aren't truly united, Biden's almost as bad as Dan Quayle, Palin is the best since Reagan, why does Obama hate Hillary?

(snarky paraphrase, but that's the basic gist)

Ed Rollins is a republican.

 

[Stoney Mason]

top stories on cnn:

Rollins: Obama should have picked Hillary
Ticker: When will Clinton attack Palin?
'Dems are in trouble,' ex-mayor says

Yeah I saw that. Very annoying example of media narrative being set. There was little "oh no Mccain is toast" stories when Obama was up by 8 that I noticed. Now that it's tied the narrative is all OMG Obama is losing!

 

[VanMardigan]

Democrats aren't truly united, Biden's almost as bad as Dan Quayle, Palin is the best since Reagan, why does Obama hate Hillary?

(snarky paraphrase, but that's the basic gist)

He just couldn't do it and maybe thought he didn't need to do it. He was wrong. That choice would have meant that McCain probably wouldn't have picked Palin. And if McCain had picked anybody else from his shortlist, the Republican convention would have been boring, and the party's base would not have been motivated.

It's like the dude read my post from yesterday. Spooky.

edit: here's me yesterday:

if Obama had picked Hillary, McCain couldn't have responded with Palin. He would've had to go with Mitt or Pawlenty and he'd be getting crushed right now in polls. No way Romney or Pawlenty would've energized the Republicans in this way.

 

[BotoxAgent]

On the bright side, it keeps the Obama campaign on its toes. They seems to always shine when they're down. I hope they rise to occasion yet again.

but it does suck that the deck is stacked so high against him right now :-/

 

[so_awes]

On the bright side, it keeps the Obama campaign on its toes. They seems to always shine when they're down. I hope they rise to occasion yet again.

but it does suck that the deck is stacked so high against him right now :-/

i'm telling you, it's over. time to abandon ship.

:[

 

[GhaleonEB]

On the bright side, it keeps the Obama campaign on its toes. They seems to always shine when they're down. I hope they rise to occasion yet again.

but it does suck that the deck is stacked so high against him right now :-/

They just need to keep executing their ground-level strategy. I'd like to see them hit back harder, but we've all been saying that the entire time. But he'll do just fine. I'm curious to see the tack Hillary takes today.

chilloutivegotthisshit.gif

Side note: NPR mentioned that Barack dropped his kids off for school this morning, the first day of the school year. The man is awesome.

 

[Fragamemnon]

but it does suck that the deck is stacked so high against him right now :-/

Stacked so high that, at the peak of the McCain convention bounce, they are tied or near tied everywhere. This election has consistently had polling oscillating between +3-+4 Obama and all tied up. I can understand why everyone would be scared-the prospect of a more neoconservative President than Bush in McCain or, should he die, being governed by a fundie witch like Palin, but people need to cool their boots.

 

[Karma Kramer]

This is all spinning out of control.

Luckily there is enough time for the heat to cool off hopefully.

 

[Particle Physicist]

.

 

[GhaleonEB]

This is all spinning out of control.

Luckily there is enough time for the heat to cool off hopefully.

Narratives are hard to break, but the news cycles can shift rapidly. A week ago it was all about Obama's huge lead. Now, in the same timeframe, McCain is tied or a touch ahead. Everyone will spaz out for a week, then it's back to whatever big distraction comes along.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Stacked so high that, at the peak of the McCain convention bounce, they are tied or near tied everywhere. This election has consistently had polling oscillating between +3-+4 Obama and all tied up. I can understand why everyone would be scared-the prospect of a more neoconservative President than Bush in McCain or, should he die, being governed by a fundie witch like Palin, but people need to cool their boots.

Stack so high, I don't mean the poll numbers, but how the news cycle and media narrative has been favoring McCain with very few news stations or journalists calling him out on his obvious lies.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Stacked so high that, at the peak of the McCain convention bounce, they are tied or near tied everywhere. This election has consistently had polling oscillating between +3-+4 Obama and all tied up. I can understand why everyone would be scared-the prospect of a more neoconservative President than Bush in McCain or, should he die, being governed by a fundie witch like Palin, but people need to cool their boots.

Wait, hold on a second. Are you telling me that I shouldn't be looking at real estate in Canada right now based on one news day?

 

[soul creator]

Ed Rollins is a republican.

yeah, I knew that. It's still funny to read the blatant spin.

 

[Zeliard]

Stack so high, I don't mean the poll numbers, but how the news cycle and media narrative has been favoring McCain with very few news stations or journalists calling him out on his obvious lies.

That's one thing I liked about Dan Abrams - he was pretty much the only guy in the media (even moreso than Olbermann) who called John McCain out on various things in his appropriately-titled "Teflon John" segment.

 

[artredis1980]

wait. so the republicans don't have the right to get a convention bounce?


and also, how is Obama's lead shrinking if Obama got that lead from his convention?


All of you should chillax! At the end of the day you guys should be smart enough to realise that if the Election is about Obama, he will lose!!!!

if this election turns to be about palin , then McCain will lose!

the more people find what her positions her, the popularity numbers will fade slowly and surely and by November 2nd she will be fully vetted by the media and the campaign.


Obama was in the stars when he started, he was so popular , he was more popular than Hillary but then came ayers and wright and other stuff and he became grounded. Palin will go through this again and when the focus will shift from 'Oh its a woman, so cool, she seems nice i like her' to 'What does she believe in'

Obama will win

 

[GhaleonEB]

Wait, hold on a second. Are you telling me that I shouldn't be looking at real estate in Canada right now based on one news day?

I'd bookmark some sites for future reference, but not order property appraisals just yet.

 

[AniHawk]

Just looking at 04 stuff...

Missouri has a lot more Democrats than I would've thought. Kerry lost by 7 points there, and the Democrat running for governor lost by 3.

I'm shocked that Virginia is in any way close considering how many House reps are Republican (and all by a good margin). Hell, Missouri was closer in 04. Guess that's the Warner/Kaine combo in effect. Would they help stump for Obama in the state? Or could it damage their career if they side with a candidate and said candidate loses?

Kerry lost by 110,000 votes in Ohio. Lots of Republican House reps there. But 300k new voters since January, was it?

Colorado: Popular Dem Governor and Lieutenant Governor. 4/7 of house reps are dem, and one senator is dem. The other senator's seat will probably go Dem this year.

Nevada: Slim win for Bush. Pretty much all Republican aside from Reid in the Senate and one House rep.

North Carolina: 7/13 house reps are dem. 2 Republican senators. Democratic governor (who has endorsed Obama) and lieutenant governor.

Indiana: Okay, this makes no sense to go blue this year. Aside from Bayh, there's barely no other Democrat in a major position.

Florida: Another lost cause.

Wisconsin: I didn't know Kerry only won by 1 point and 11k votes. I thought the state was a lot bluer than that.

Michigan: Like Wisconsin, except bluer. I would have switched the two states before I looked up the 2004 results, actually. Both states have dem gov/ltgovs and two dem senators.

New Hampshire: only won in 2004 by less than 9k votes. Popular dem governor, but lots of republicans in other parts of government. Weird.

 

[Fatalah]

Obama will win

For some reason, you didn't make me feel any better.

 

[artredis1980]

Just looking at 04 stuff...

Missouri has a lot more Democrats than I would've thought. Kerry lost by 7 points there, and the Democrat running for governor lost by 3.

I'm shocked that Virginia is in any way close considering how many House reps are Republican (and all by a good margin). Hell, Missouri was closer in 04. Guess that's the Warner/Kaine combo in effect. Would they help stump for Obama in the state? Or could it damage their career if they side with a candidate and said candidate loses?

Kerry lost by 110,000 votes in Ohio. Lots of Republican House reps there. But 300k new voters since January, was it?

Colorado: Popular Dem Governor and Lieutenant Governor. 3/7 of house reps are dem, and one senator is dem. The other senator's seat will probably go Dem this year.

Nevada: Slim win for Bush. Pretty much all Republican aside from Reid in the Senate and one House rep.

North Carolina: 6/13 house reps are dem. 2 Republican senators. Democratic governor (who has endorsed Obama) and lieutenant governor.

Indiana: Okay, this makes no sense to go blue this year. Aside from Bayh, there's barely no other Democrat in a major position.

Florida: Another lost cause.

Wisconsin: I didn't know Kerry only won by 1 point and 11k votes. I thought the state was a lot bluer than that.

Michigan: Like Wisconsin, except bluer. I would have switched the two states before I looked up the 2004 results, actually. Both states have dem gov/ltgovs and two dem senators.

New Hampshire: only won in 2004 by less than 9k votes. Popular dem governor, but lots of republicans in other parts of government. Weird.

Obama is not kerry

 

[GhaleonEB]

Wisconsin: I didn't know Kerry only won by 1 point and 11k votes. I thought the state was a lot bluer than that.

Wisconsin seems to be similar to Iowa this year - very narrow in 2004 but shifting more blue in 2008. The demographics are quite similar.

 

[gkryhewy]

It's like the dude read my post from yesterday. Spooky.

edit: here's me yesterday:

Blind quirrels, broken clocks, and dogs' assholes!

Just kidding

 

[Door2Dawn]

For some reason, you didn't make me feel any better.

Shocking.

 

[Journeywalker]

Honestly, I'm quite good with pets; I love cats and dogs, and the feeling is mutual. I am simply saying that's it's none of my business what other people do with their property if they're not infringing upon the rights of others.

Does this sound frighteningly similar to the defense of brutality against slaves to anyone else? I suppose it hinges upon whether we give the owner absolute rights over his property, and whether animals have any inherent rights. While we currently recognize some inherent rights in animal cruelty laws, the extent of these rights is often arbitrary.

Unfortunately, that is the nature of society recognizing one's rights. The point at which we currently recognize human life is arbitrarily set at birth. I can understand the argument for pushing that to an earlier arbitrary point in development, but there are some interesting issues to sort out. Frequently, fertilized eggs do not attach to wall of the uturus, or they are not fertilized early enough to properly attach to the uteran wall. When that fertilized egg or blastocyst is removed from the body, it dies. Is that human death? Cancerous cells often have unique DNA. Does a cancerous growth have human life?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Stack so high, I don't mean the poll numbers, but how the news cycle and media narrative has been favoring McCain with very few news stations or journalists calling him out on his obvious lies.

There's still time. Palin represents a double-edge sword for the McCain campaign. On the one hand, it's generated buzz and excitement that didn't exist before, but on the other hand, that's not always a good thing.

Nobody cared about what McCain was doing two weeks ago because he had decided to make the election a referendum on Obama. Now, it looks like he wants to have a contest between himself and Obama. Right now, after the RNC, it's played well. Mac is back! That maverick is going to show Obama what he's all about! Now, people are going to be paying attention to McCain and Palin. Yes, the media is swooning right now, but remember how they were with Obama? Let's wait and see if they get tired of this narrative before we give up all hope.

And giving up hope would be bad. As Obama supporters, it's supposed to be the drug that gets us up in the morning. My friends, giving up hope now with almost two months left until the election? That's not change we can believe in.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Thom Hartmann today talking about how Obama is in trouble if they don't do something. The repubs are getting a LOT of traction over their latest strategy of repeating the same simple lies about who Palin and McCain are over and over and over again.

This could be much more than a bump and could bring some states back into play.

Lots of Americans are desperate for change and reform but they are also naive enough to really want to believe that some nice looking white people that remind them of their family and neighbors are the ones that can do it.

If McCain's campaign keep lying enough about being reformers and "mavricks" there's a ton of people who will start to believe it just because they want to. They aren't smart enough to try to dig up the real truth.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Does this sound frighteningly similar to the defense of brutality against slaves to anyone else?

If there's a theme with JDub, it's a complete lack of empathy for living creatures, whether it be pets or other human beings.

 

[Particle Physicist]

my dad just e-mailed me this article. ::

How Obama lost the election
By Spengler

DENVER - Senator Barack Obama's acceptance speech last week seemed vastly different from the stands of this city's Invesco Stadium than it did to the 40 million who saw it on television. Melancholy hung like thick smog over the reserved seats where I sat with Democratic Party staffers. The crowd, of course, cheered mechanically at the tag lines, flourished placards, and even rose for the obligatory wave around the stadium. But its mood was sour. The air carried the acrid smell of defeat, and the crowd took shallow breaths. Even the appearance of R&B great Stevie Wonder failed to get the blood pumping.

The speech itself dragged on for three-quarters of an hour. As David S Broder wrote in the Washington Post: "[Obama's] recital of a long list of domestic promises could have been delivered by any Democratic nominee from Walter Mondale to John Kerry. There was no theme music to the speech and really no phrase or sentence that is likely to linger in the memory of any listener. The thing I never expected did in fact occur: Al Gore, the famously wooden former vice president, gave a more lively and convincing speech than Obama did."

On television, Obama's spectacle might have looked like The Ten Commandments, but inside the stadium it felt like Night of the Living Dead. The longer the candidate spoke, and the more money he promised to spend on alternative energy, preschool education, universal health care, and other components of the Democratic pinata, the lower the party professionals slouched into their seats. The professionals I sat with were Hillary Clinton people, to be sure, and had reason to sulk, for an Obama victory might do them little good in any event.

The Democrats were watching the brightest and most articulate presidential candidate they have fielded since John F Kennedy snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And this was before John McCain, in a maneuver worthy of Admiral Chester Nimitz at the Battle of Midway, turned tables on the Democrats' strategy with the choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Speaking to Obama supporters on the periphery of the big event, I was startled by the rapturous devotion elicited by the junior senator from Illinois. He is no symbol for identity politics, no sacrifice on the altar of white guilt, but the most gifted persuader of individuals that I have encountered in any country's politics, as well as a powerful orator on the grand stage. This is not a crowd phenomenon nor a fad, but the response of hundreds of people to an individual.

I sat in on a session with three leaders of Veterans for Obama, a group of retired young officers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, courtesy of the New Republic's writer on the scene, David Samuels. With passion and enthusiasm, these young people spoke of their hopes for nation-building in Iraq. The George W Bush administration should have put twice the resources into the beleaguered country, they harangued me - not just soldiers, but agronomists, traffic cops, lawyers, judges, and physicians. The Department of Agriculture should have mobilized, along with the Department of Justice.

Nation-building? Doubling down on the US commitment to Iraq? Isn't that trying to out-Bush the Bush administration, while Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq and spending the money on programs at home? Unblinking, one of the soldiers said, "That's what we think Barack will do." They believed in a more expensive version of the administration's program, and faulted Bush for half measures - and somehow they believed that Obama really agreed with them, all the public evidence to the contrary. And they believed in Barack with perfect faith.

Gandalf's warnings about the irresistible voice of the wizard Saruman in J R R Tolkien's Lord of the Ringscome to mind. If these battle-hardened veterans of America's wars fell so easily under the spell of Obama's voice, who can withstand it? Obama's persuasive powers, though, are strongest when channeled through the empathy of his interlocutor. Everyone believes that Obama feels his pain, shares his dream, and will fight his fight and heal his ills. But that is everyone as an individual. Add all the individuals up into a campaign platform, and it turns into three-quarters of an hour worth of promises that echo all the ghosts of conventions past.

Obama will spend the rest of his life wondering why he rejected the obvious road to victory, that is, choosing Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential nominee. However reluctantly, Clinton would have had to accept. McCain's choice of vice presidential candidate made obvious after the fact what the party professionals felt in their fingertips at the stadium extravaganza yesterday: rejecting Clinton in favor of the colorless, unpopular, tangle-tongued Washington perennial Joe Biden was a statement of weakness. McCain's selection was a statement of strength. America's voters will forgive many things in a politician, including sexual misconduct, but they will not forgive weakness.

That is why McCain will win in November, and by a landslide, barring some unforeseen event. Obama is the most talented and persuasive politician of his generation, the intellectual superior of all his competitors, but a fatally insecure personality. American voters are not intellectual, but they are shrewd, like animals. They can smell insecurity, and the convention stank of it. Obama's prospective defeat is entirely of its own making. No one is more surprised than Republican strategists, who were convinced just weeks ago that a weakening economy ensured a Democratic victory.

Biden, who won 3% of the popular vote in the Democratic presidential primary in his home state of Delaware, and 1% or less in every other contest he entered, is ballot-box poison. Obama evidently chose him to assuage critics who point to his lack of foreign policy credentials. That was a deadly error, for by appearing to concede the critics' claim that he knows little about foreign policy, Obama raised questions about whether he is qualified to be president in the first place. He had a winning alternative, which was to pick Clinton. That would have sent a double message: first, that Obama is tough enough to make the slippery Clintons into his subordinates, and second, that he is generous enough to extend a hand to his toughest adversary in the cause of unity.

Why didn't Obama choose Hillary? The most credible explanation came from veteran columnist Robert Novak May 10, who reports that Michelle Obama vetoed Hillary's candidacy. "The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility," Novak wrote. If that is true, then Obama succumbed to the character weakness I described in a February 26 profile of (Obama's women reveal his secret). His peculiar dependency on an assertive and often rancorous spouse, I argued, made him vulnerable, and predicted that Obama "will destroy himself before he destroys the country".

Alternately, Obama might have chosen a rising Democratic star like Virginia's 50-year-old governor Tim Kaine. A weaker choice than Hillary, Kaine (or someone like him) would have made a bold statement of self-confidence. Obama could have said with credibility that he would bring to Washington a new generation of outsiders who would change the old system. Instead, Obama saddled an old and unpopular Washington warhorse.

Curiously, Obama ignored the rising stars of his own party, offering the prime time speaking slots to familiar faces, including Senator Edward Kennedy and Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as his own wife, the first prospective First Lady to take the keynote spot in the history of American party conventions.

McCain doesn't have a tenth of Obama's synaptic fire-power, but he is a nasty old sailor who knows when to come about for a broadside. Given Obama's defensive, even wimpy selection of a running-mate, McCain's choice was obvious. He picked the available candidate most like himself: a maverick with impeccable reform credentials, a risk-seeking commercial fisherwoman and huntress married to a marathon snowmobile racer who carries a steelworkers union card. The Democratic order of battle was to tie McCain to the Bush administration and attack McCain by attacking Bush. With Palin on the ticket, McCain has re-emerged as the maverick he really is.

The young Alaskan governor, to be sure, hasn't any business running for vice president of the United States with her thin resume. McCain and his people know this perfectly well, and that is precisely why they put her on the ticket. If Palin is unqualified to be vice president, all the less so is Obama qualified to be president.

McCain has certified his authenticity for the voters. He's now the outsider, the reformer, the maverick, the war hero running next to the Alaskan amazon with a union steelworker spouse. Obama, who styled himself an agent of change, took his image for granted, and attempted to ensure himself victory by doing the cautious thing. He is trapped in a losing position, and there is nothing he can do to get out of it.

Obama, in short, is long on brains and short on guts. A Shibboleth of American politics holds that different tactics are required to win the party primaries as opposed to the general election, that is, by pandering to fringe groups with disproportionate influence in the primaries. But Obama did not compromise himself with extreme positions. He did not have to, for younger voters who greeted him with near-religious fervor did not require that he take any position other than his promise to change everything. Obama could have allied with the old guard, through an Obama-Clinton ticket, or he could have rejected the old guard by choosing the closest thing the Democrats had to a Sarah Palin. But fear paralyzed him, and he did neither.

In my February 26 profile, I called Obama "the political equivalent of a sociopath", without any derogatory intent. A sociopath seeks the empathy of all around him while empathizing with no one. Obama has an almost magical ability to gain the confidence of those around him. Perhaps it was the adaptation of a bright and sensitive young boy who was abandoned by three parents - his Kenyan father Barack Obama Sr, who left his pregnant young bride; his Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetero; and by his mother, Ann Dunham, who sent 10-year-old Obama to live with her parents while she pursued her career as an anthropologist.

Combine a child's response to serial abandonment with the perspective of an outsider, and Obama became an alien species against which American politics had no natural defenses. He is a Third World anthropologist profiling Americans, in but not of the American system. No country's politics depends more openly on friendships than America's, yet Obama has not a single real friend, for he rose so fast that all his acquaintances become rungs on the ladder of his ascent. One human relationship crowds the others out of his life, his marriage to Michelle, a strong, assertive and very angry woman.

If Novak's report is accurate, then Michelle's anger will have lost the election for Obama, as Achilles' anger nearly killed the Greek cause in the Trojan War. But the responsibility rests not with Michelle, but with Obama. Obama's failure of nerve at the cusp of his success is consistent with my profile of the candidate, in which I predicted that he would self-destruct. It's happening faster than I expected. As I wrote last February:

It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama ... Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals.

By all rights, the Democrats should win this election. They will lose, I predict, because of the flawed character of their candidate.

(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online

holy crap.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I really don't know what Obama should do strategically.

Everything just seems like a bad idea to me.

 

[RubxQub]

Obama should just make an ad where he calls John McCain a liar straight to the camera and refutes all this "Barack is going to tax working Americans" bullshit.

McCain's ads are so fucking misleading, it's insane that they're allowed to run.

 

[Fatalah]

Thom Hartmann today talking about how Obama is in trouble if they don't do something.

And he's right. I don't know what the Obama camp is waiting for, but they shouldn't wait for the debates to unleash their fury.

Like Nate @ fivethirtyeight points out, these next few weeks leading up to the first debate are really important because there's a dead zone. Whichever camp yells loudest wins.

 

[Door2Dawn]

I really don't know what Obama should do strategically.

Everything just seems like a bad idea to me.

Yeah everything is spinning out of control at this point.