The PBS pundits seem to think McCain did ok, but Obama held ground. McCain's performance was very engaging, but didn't deliver the necessary knock-out. I agree, it seems like Gramps was on the Viagra tonight, but I don't think his performance was good enough to change the momentum that has been building behind the Obama campaign. Polls bear out the fact that going negative has hurt McCain's campaign and I don't think McCain visiting the Ayres matter helped him with the swing voters, which is all that really matters at this point. He has the base. He needs the moderates, and the moderates are more worried about their 401ks than any past associations Obama has with radicals from the 1960s.
The elections are 2 weeks away and both candidates have approval rates in the 50% range. This is almost unheard of this late in the game. Obama has squandered a great opportunity in this race by failing to hammer the Republicans on the economy, but he could hardly do so without calling attention to his own support by the financial industry. Nader, as usual, is right. You cannot have a debate between two establishment candidates and expect anything other than moderate differences between the major candidates. The economy is heading into a recession, maybe a depression, and neither candidate thought the issue was important enough to engage on a meaningful level. The lack of a meaningful articulable difference on economic issues makes the debate, and indeed the election, a mystery to the average voter, which makes them susceptible to attack ads and the like. McCain would be a disaster for the economy, but to expect much more from Obama might be a fools errand.
4 comments:
There you go again. Why do you continue to assert that dem voters have this hopeless belief that their candidate will be their savior? This proposition seems to me to be merely the echo of the lazy and childish characterization of the dem candidate as the messiah. It seems to me the equivalent of calling the girl who didn't return your attention in high school as stuck up (or a lesbian).
And isn't you portrayal of Nader as the answer just as fanciful as the false characterization of O.
I'm not expecting a pot of gold after the election, nor am I hopeful that all that Bush has wrought will be righted under the Dems, but I do expect some changes and that is a start. The alternative is just not acceptable and I don't think that belittling my choice as some type of pie in the sky wish is compelling enough to consider a third party when a viable one does not exist.
Oh right the big bad two headed monster Dem/Rep just wont let it happen??? Nader (and others) has had opportunity to build a party over the last ten years and what has he got to show for it? Whining about the strangle hold of the major parties without offering substantive policies (that have a chance of being put into effect) is
just not enough. What is Naders coalition built of, what are their policies, how does a third party president effect his policies without support of his own party members in congress? It is incumbent on him and by extension his supporters to explain this. Blaming the media or the other parties is not going to cut it and insulting folks who are likeminded in policy but no on board with Nader is no help either.
When I was a child my father told my brother to share his ice cream sundae with me. Well you know brothers, he didn't want to share the bounty. So he summoned up the biggest lunger he could and deposited on top! Disgusting, I wanted no part of it and though the phlegm was his own proud creation he also was put off and neither of us ate it as it melted forlornly into a black white and green mess in the bottom of the dish. Dad still paid the bill.
So all I'm saying is don't piss on my cherrios just because you can't enjoy them on your own.
Joe,
Didn't the patriot say he is voting for your man after all? At any rate, not completely agreeing with your choice of candidate or even outright disagreeing with your choice of candidate isn't in any way akin to someone pissing on your cheerios or your ice cream story. It is about every person choosing their candidate according to their own conscience. You can disagree with their choice of flavor and blame them for having to eat that flavor or another you didn't choose, etc, but you can't cry that they spit on your flavor by not choosing it. It is, after all, their right to choose the flavor as much as it is your right.
Joe,
They both voted for the bail-out and to give the president almost unlimited power under the new FISA reform. So far as I'm concerned the Dems and Republicans are more or less the same on the Constitution.
Obama will be marginally better economically but doesn't the country deserve more than marginally better?Sounds to me like you're the cynical one. You seem to be suggesting that attempting to buck the 2 party system is futile, which is sort of what Nader is trying to call attention to by running. Remember, it was pie in the sky thinking that got us away from England in the 1st place. Good luck with whoever you pull the lever for.
Oh, and Joe,
The difference is, this time you're eating the sundae.
M
Post a Comment