McCain does not have the temperament to be president. He already knows everything he wants to know. He may be even more inflexible than Bush.

We need a person aho can talk to people he disagrees with, who can multi-task, who can listen to advice.

Listen to him - he talks about himself, mostly. He has good qualities but not for the presidency.

By now it is clear that the president is NOT a CEO. It is a different sort of job altogether.

Analysis:

Americans like a winner. Especially when said Americans are on the fence, and haven't decided yet.

Americans also like underdogs, in some fashion. Find a way to bring those two (pretty much mutually exclusive) desires together, and you have victory. Every time.

I also except these numbers to change after pretty much every primary/caucus. If Obama wins NV/SC, then what'll the polls say?

I am one of those who still puts their faith in polls. At least as an accurate picture of the electorate at the time the poll was taken.

Why is it that every possible thing regarding race is being played up and over-interpreted---it does not matter whether it makes the Clintons look good or bad---it helps them either way---but SEX-----even when it is from an easily documented meet the press transcript with a FEMALE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI is taboo to mention or discuss?

Claire mcCaskill is not part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

McCaskill to Endorse Obama, Might Have Something to Do with '06 Comment

By Antonio D. French Filed Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 8:53 AM

The AP is reporting that Senator Claire McCaskill is going to endorse Barack Obama for President today.
McCaskill has praised Obama often and was widely believed to favor the Illinois senator over Clinton. But the Senate freshman had resisted openly supporting a candidate until now, saying she wanted to preserve working relationships with Senate colleagues.

She said last week that she identifies with the desire for change that Obama supporters have reported to pollsters.
One factor in McCaskill's endorsement may have been that her relationship with Hillary Clinton has been a bit shaky dating back to when McCaskill was running for the senate in 2006.

During an appearance that year on NBC's "Meet the Press", McCaskill said she didn't want former President Bill Clinton, who had previously appeared at a rally for McCaskill in St. Louis, anywhere near her daughter. PubDef.net learned that the next day a fundraiser the Clintons had scheduled for McCaskill in New York was canceled.

Here's the transcript from that October 8, 2006 show:

MR. RUSSERT: You’re having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you think Bill Clinton was a great president?

MS. McCASKILL: I do. I think—I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, his personal issues. I said at...

MR. RUSSERT: But do you...

MS. McCASKILL: I said at the time, “I think he’s been a great leader, but I don’t want my daughter near him.”

MR. RUSSERT: You said that, according to New Yorker magazine, that you don’t think Hillary Clinton would be a good Democratic nominee because she couldn’t win Democrats in Missouri. True?

MS. McCASKILL: Well, you know, honestly, the presidential politics is going to get very intense and very, frankly, there’s going to be a lot of back and forth after November. I don’t want to get into presidential politics today.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you like to see her president?

MS. McCASKILL: You know, I, I, I think any Democratic nominee is going to be better than this president

Well either race-baiting, lying about your opponent's positions and playing the victim to the media work very well, or this poll is about as unreliable as all the others.

Greg, as usual we agree.

BTW, "accept," not "except." I guess my Evidence prof threw my brain out of whack today. Not surprising, really.

I wonder if a McCain/Huckabee ticket is a possibility. Besides respecting each other, their political strengths are complementary. Huckabee could get McCain in good with the Christian coalition and McCain has the foreign policy creds that Huckabee clearly lacks. I'm sure Huckabee isn't thinking that way yet, but it would be a tough ticket for the Dems to beat.

A calm is settling over me ... I'm 56, I despise the GOP and thought surely, until last Tuesday, we would nominate the best person to win in November. But now ... it seems God is indeed a Republican, as everything slowly falls into place for a Hillary-McCain matchup, one we will surely lose after a nightmarish flailing by the Clintons to preserve themselves. And I'm making my peace with it. 4-8 more years of the GOP will be a horrible disaster, one of our own making (thanks again, NH women). Yet at the very least, the Clinton era will be over and someday, people younger than I will be able to see our party evolve and prevail. I have no power, as one person, to change what's coming in the general election, and I dont want to die from campaign stress. So I'm just going to accept President McCain and hope for the best.

It's simple. Murdoch and big media make up some fake polls where the business [read: wealth] candidates win and those favoring the poor lose. It publishes thes polls like there's no tomorrow.

This gives those favoring other candidates the impression their candidate is a loser. Some then change their votes, and the poll is self-fulfilling. Don't fall for it. Vote your concience.

I'll go on record with my prediction of Hillary's VP pick, since we may never know the answer: Wes Clark.

I can't believe the Dems are about to squander this election. McCain vs. Clinton is a dream matchup for the GOP and probably the only conceivable matchup they can possibly win.

Oh, that's right colonpowwow, McCaskill must be sexist if she says anything against clinton. Or, maybe she's a commie, or a pinko, but at a minimum she is unamerican. Of course, she is not allowed to have any opinion that goes against the clinton personality cult.

I'm pretty sure they could win a McCain-Obama matchup too by playing up the military experience angle. Hillary did her best to prepare for the possiblity of running someday by using her Senate years to educate herself in military affairs. She has a slight edge on Obama in that area.

Michael A.

Michael A wrote on January 14, 2008 2:27 PM:

"Oh, that's right colonpowwow, McCaskill must be sexist if she says anything against clinton. Or, maybe she's a commie, or a pinko, but at a minimum she is unamerican. Of course, she is not allowed to have any opinion that goes against the clinton personality cult."

Uh, Michael. Where did I call McCaskill any of these things? I must have missed it. Thanks to your deep insights and understandings, you are able to point out what I must have said between the lines.

What's wrong with me anyhow?

BTW Michael, (I'll write this next part real slow so even you'll understand it) -that's a joke. I already know what's wrong with me IYHO.

I'm pretty sure they could win a McCain-Obama matchup too by playing up the military experience angle.

Possibly. I could hardly discount the prospect. That said, they could play that same angle just as effectively against Sen Clinton and I dare say that Sen Clinton's "edge" on this issue is not even "slight." When they pull out the shots of former POWs endorsing McCain and the pictures of him after his release, even a "slight" edge would disappear entirely. This is just not a good field of battle for any democrat, so it is rather beside the point to mention it, for whatever my opinion is worth.

I suspect we will see these numbers back and forth from now until the primaries are over, especially if Edwards stays in the race. In the general election, I can't see either Obama or Clinton losing to anyone the Republicans trot out. It'll be like Clinton-Dole in '96.

ColonPow: I honestly don't give a shit about ADA ratings. And we can "work" all we want. McCain will crush Hillary and anyone who's honest to themselves will admit it. Presidential elections have little to do with 'issues.' They are about personality/likability (she has neither) press coverage (they despise her and worship him) and perceptions of honesty ('nuf said). Edwards would have a shot but has none at the nomination; Obama can win men and independents, blunting McCain's strength. Hillary? Please.

Greg, you are probably right about that. It is impossible to strategically pick a candidate based on likely Republican opponent - especially since they are doing the same thing on the other side.

Nick wrote on January 14, 2008 2:46 PM:

"ColonPow: I honestly don't give a shit about ADA ratings."

Equally well-thought-out and put, Nick.

Can you show me where Senator Obama did so much better than Hillary did in the head-to-head polling matchups with McCain nationally and state by state? I think I missed them.

Actually, Edwards did the best I think. But I don't like him so much so I don't give a shit about it.

Interesting that Obama's numbers don't move much (and I think that was the case with the NH polls), but that Hillary's jump around along with Edwards.

Not sure why that would be the case. Perhaps Krugman's case that Obama is to the right of the other two is something people are considering (though I don't think his column today was persuasive he was better on the health care issue).

I don't know anything about any murder regarding Vince Foster.

Sister Soljah was not worth defending--which made the contrived episode so easy for Bill.

kjoe:

You don't know that Hillary murdered Vince Foster? Why, it's as commonplace knowlege as Bill's career as a rapist!

If you're going to come on here and rant discredited rightwing talking points (now that Falwell is in heaven and there's an opening), please get them straight.

Report at once to Karl Rove for "re-grooving."

As a resident of MO, McCaskill's endorsement is no plus for Obama at least for me. Her voting record on Iraq and FISA is atrocious.

Hey, Greg and Eric? Not an accusation of bias or even an insinuation of same, just a plea for more info from someone too lazy to go dig it up himself.

Could I ask that you guys please state in the lede of stories about polls whether its a poll of likely voters (LV), registered voters (RV) or the population overall? Even with that data, I'm having a lot of trouble making sense of Gallup, ABC/WaPo, CBS/NYT and the Rasmussen daily and weekly numbers. Two of those polls say the race is close to tied, and the other two say it ain't even close.

Without it, however, I don't see how anyone can make any sense of this stuff at all.

Thanks. I now return to our regularly scheduled programming of unhinged partisan ranting.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 14, 2008 2:27 PM:

McCaskill to Endorse Obama, Might Have Something to Do with '06 Comment

For what little my opinion is worth, I do not think that it has anything at all to do with that "'06 comment." Rather, Sen McCaskill knows that Missouri has a governor's election this go around and does not want to see Jay Nixon (D) get trounced by Matt Blunt (R - think 'GW Bush on a smaller scale') because Clinton's name on the ticket brings every knuckle-walking troglodyte out of the caves of southern and central Missouri to vote against Clinton (and for Blunt while they are at it). It is the same reason that Gov Napolitano, Sen Nelson, Sen Johnson, Sen Daschle, Dr Millin, Gov Kaine and a host of other red-state democrats are endorsing Sen Obama. They know how costly a Clinton nomination would prove to the larger democratic party.

Insofar as endorsements have seldom had a measurable impact on election outcomes (Gore endorsing Dean did not save him, etc), your logic (and that of the endorsers) appears to me to be flawed because they think that they have the power to affect election outcomes. Clinton will be on the ballot in November regardless, so what would the endorsers do then?

Hillary/Wes Clark '08!

The comments have fascinating insights into polling methods, and the tiny differences between the candidates on the issues and their personalities. Obviously a lot of people, including many Democrats, hate Hillary Clinton and many people love her. I admire and respect her, myself. But to me, the fact remains that if the Republicans nominate McCain or Huckabee, THEY WILL RETAIN THE PRESIDENCY. All of the liberal and moderate judges on the Supreme Court will either die or retire over the next eight years and if we don't capture the white house this time, I predict that there will be no democracy and very little else of value left to compete about by 2016. This one matters! We should thank Hillary, sincerely, for her valiant campaign but we MUST NOT NOMINATE HER!

Insofar as endorsements have seldom had a measurable impact on election outcomes (Gore endorsing Dean did not save him, etc), your logic (and that of the endorsers) appears to me to be flawed because they think that they have the power to affect election outcomes.

In my defense, I would plead that this is not really my logic, it is Sen McCaskill's logic. I agree that her endorsement (like all of those other endorsements) will do little to help Obama win. That said, you cannot blame her for trying every little bit she can. She does not want to have to run for re-election in four years with Clinton's name on the ballot above hers. She does not want Jay Nixon to have to run against Matt Blunt in a few months with Clinton's name above his. No democrat in MO wants 4 more years of Blunt or a possible return of Jim Talent, both of which become far more likely with Sen Clinton at the top of our ticket.

I say this as a man who agrees with MO Blue above - I strongly dislike Sen McCaskill and had to hold my nose to vote for her last time. Her endorsement does not make me think any more highly of Sen Obama than I already did (although I suppose that the fact that she endorsed Obama makes me think slightly better of her). Sen McCaskill is completely correct, however, if she supposes that Sen Obama's candidacy would do a lot less harm to our party in this state than would Sen Clinton's.

It's going to be McCain-Lieberman and it will be a tough ticket to beat, as much as it pains me to say that. It will be the greatest media whore ticket of all time....

Turnout is what wins elections.....if we want to win it this time....someone has to let loose. Clinton/Obama 08. The Dems can blow this away if they are smart.

Hard for me to believe Obama supporters would really go to McCain if Hillary is the nominee. You really think she would be less likely to get out of Iraq than McCain, or as conservative in appointing judges? There is more at stake here than campaign tactics you don't like.

Sorry, forgot the close tag in my ire about a McCain-Lieberman admin. The below is me, not William G.


And there we go. Dems are so angered by the events of this last weekend -- and events to come -- that the more moderate among them go McCain and the more disaffected stay home. The choice of Lieberman assuages the evangelicals, who are also motivated to come out by their hatred of HRC. The Repub establishment gets behind McCain because they have to. etc. The narrative essentially writes itself. Or, I should say, has already been written.

@Dawn, re: Wes Clark as Clinton's VP pick - I have been thinking the same thing.

There's no way she'd pick Feinstein, it's too risky and problematic on many levels, and would not in the least help her in swing states.

Other options:
Evan Bayh
Mark Warner
Evan Bayh

And just so everyone notices, the Intrade (and all the betting sites) are just as flip-floppy as the polls.

To all above--and on other threads throughout this fine forum--who have pledged to not vote for Clinton no matter what...as the great 'dcshungu' once said: You don't matter! Get it? Nobody cares about your vote! You can now go crawl back under that rock Michael A is keeping warm for you. Thanks.

;^}

Obama, the Al Qaeda plant ... you would think the terrorists would be smart enough not to plant a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, wouldn't you? Maybe a John Jefferson or Ralph Smith ... pretty dumb. As for the effect of the e-mails and all that; who knows? This country is beyond fucked up; might work; except we'll nominate HRC and McCain can snooze his way to 1600. I've come to terms with it all.

Bill and Hillary just proving what Karl Rove and George W. taught many times: going negative wins.

Hm, I do not think that "Hillary Gained Sizable National Lead" is accurate. The ABC poll showing Obama that high was probably off, so Clinton has managed to keep at least most of her national lead.

We'll see how much we don't matter loki when your bitch gets slapped around.

These upcoming primaries are especially hard to predict with all the cross-party voting going on, what with Kos encouraging Dems to vote for Mitt in Michigan, and Obama courting Republicans in Nevada.

JkA@5:11.
Are you kidding or just nuts.Anybody who`s seen what has gone on for the last 7 years and votes for a Republican would have to be insane or asleep.
Now Bush denies the NIE on Iran.If you even consider voting for a rethug you`re an asshole and an asshole in that order.
I`m an Independent former Democrat,and the reason for my change is that idiots like you do nothing but criticize and judge poorly and your type screws up both partys.

colonpowwow wrote on January 14, 2008 3:05 PM:

You don't know that Hillary murdered Vince Foster? Why, it's as commonplace knowlege as Bill's career as a rapist!

If you're going to come on here and rant discredited rightwing talking points (now that Falwell is in heaven and there's an opening), please get them straight.

Report at once to Karl Rove for "re-grooving."

It really has been difficult sorting out what is real from what is not, which makes it really convenient for your ilk to bundle it all under the category of rightwing talking points. I am very specific about it---of all the women problems, Juanita Broaddrick is the one that seems undeniably real. The execution of Ricky Rector is not something the right wing ever talks about, and it is well documented in several places. The sister soljah moment is so well characterized that it is a permanent part of the political lexicon, as is the phrase "wag the dog". Clinton's actual words in his 1998 speech to the nation regarding the bombing of Iraq are not contestable---we have transcripts of what he said.
But that is ok---anyone who says anything negative about the Clintons, even if it is an earnest effort to separate what Bill did from Hillary and what the implications are for the current campaign, are all part of the vast right wing smear campaign. Wash, rinse, repeat.

@Imelda Blahnik re: Clinton's VP pick

Hey kjoe,

As Hillary Clinton remarked to Russert when he pointed out disagreements between her expressed views and prior words of Bill:

She first gave him a "So what?" look and said, "He's not standing up here!"

Hillary is running for president, not Bill. Maybe you think she is just a surrogate. I don't.

I support Barack, IN PART, because he stresses the need for this country to put aside the vicious partisnship.

I would be far less skeptical of Obama's candidacy if I could see any of that reflected by the people who support him. But I am seeing just the opposite. The most vicious partisans on this site are Obama supporters.

Politics is about coalition building. Not triangulation.

Somebody please explain to me what the real difference is.

BEST LINES

slb wrote

Responding to:

Politics is about coalition building. Not triangulation.

"Somebody please explain to me what the real difference is."

Capital J wrote

So make a substantive argument in favor of whichever candidate you prefer, but don't say people who vote for Clinton are making a mistake because nobody would vote for Clinton. It reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded."

THANKS YOU TWO! YOU MADE ME SMILE.

Clinton knows what happened on 9/11, and is helping keep the secret. Elect her, and we will never know.