We dodged the bullet of Palin and McCain's bad judgement of picking her.

[Lord Orwell]

oddly enough they are also considering Newt Gingrich as a 2012 candidate. What a joke.

In a contest like this though, the truth is simple: The most money spent gets you the presidency. Mccain's campaign was broke for a long time and his campaign suffered horribly for it. When he picked Palin he picked up a large group of deep-pocketed supporters. However it was too little, too late. If you look at the electoral map and track who campaigned where and how much time they spent there, it's pretty obviously a one to one relationship: The more money they spent in a state campaigning (people going door to door, putting out signs, personal appearances, etc), the larger the share of the electoral votes they got. Obama spent a fortune in the colony states, and carried every single one of them.

One final note on the maverick status of john mccain: Look up the washington dc vote. Nationwide, he received 46.1% of the popular vote compared to Obama's 52.6% yet in Washington he pulled only about 5% of the vote. Sounds to me like he was a pretty big toe-stepper.

Also look at the county-by-county voting map. I think it is pretty obvious who pulled the majority of counties. Obama merely focused his effort on those places that had more votes to give.

Now compare that with the state-by-state map. There are a few states Obama pulled maybe 5% of the counties but he pulled the populated ones.

The fact is: Obama is extremely inexperienced and has never lead anything. His job as a senator was to do the will of the people and follow. Mccain has multiple years of military experience with leadership experience. Obama's own VP said that we're going to get a major incident in the first month or two after election. And i don't know how this plays into it, but for some reason Al Queda endorsed him as president. Is it because they know he's the weaker leader? We'll see.

[demotivater]

How about not regurgitating gossip articles capsulecorpjx, don't show your ignorance, do some research before coming to a conclusion. An informed opinion is one thing, jumping on the latest blog headline is another.

VP candidates have long been subject to being skewered whether in victory or defeat. Their job as the candidates "bulldog" does have it's downsides. Palin putting up with this crap will have it's payoff, that's the name of the game. Everyone tapped to put themselves out in front of the national stage gets their payback.

We'll have some giggles when Obama fails to come through on ANY of the promises he made and Palin, or someone equally unlikely, comes in and steps all over his administration. The next four, or even eight years are gonna be ****** no matter who's in the Oval Office. The Bush presidency has a lot to do with it, but it certainly goes further back than that. This powder keg has been brewing for a lot longer than eight years.

Hell, The One even said it himself - winning the election does not equal the change we need, and it may not happen in the next four years, or even eight. LOLOL The silence from the rabid crowd was deafening. I was laughing my ass off. "It will take your time and effort to make the change happen". *crickets chirping* Talk about a victory speech targeted to do nothing but lower expectations, priceless.

Oh well, I'm just waiting for my mortgage and gas to get paid for by the Messiah. Change I can believe in!! *snickers*

[capsulecorpjx]

How about not regurgitating gossip articles capsulecorpjx, don't show your ignorance, do some research before coming to a conclusion. An informed opinion is one thing, jumping on the latest blog headline is another.

VP candidates have long been subject to being skewered whether in victory or defeat. Their job as the candidates "bulldog" does have it's downsides. Palin putting up with this crap will have it's payoff, that's the name of the game. Everyone tapped to put themselves out in front of the national stage gets their payback.

We'll have some giggles when Obama fails to come through on ANY of the promises he made and Palin, or someone equally unlikely, comes in and steps all over his administration. The next four, or even eight years are gonna be ****** no matter who's in the Oval Office. The Bush presidency has a lot to do with it, but it certainly goes further back than that. This powder keg has been brewing for a lot longer than eight years.

Hell, The One even said it himself - winning the election does not equal the change we need, and it may not happen in the next four years, or even eight. LOLOL The silence from the rabid crowd was deafening. I was laughing my ass off. "It will take your time and effort to make the change happen". *crickets chirping* Talk about a victory speech targeted to do nothing but lower expectations, priceless.

Oh well, I'm just waiting for my mortgage and gas to get paid for by the Messiah. Change I can believe in!! *snickers*

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not some Obama fanatic. I voted more against Palin's incompetence and McCain's campaign (really? Joe the Plumber against tax cuts for Middle Class? Palling around with terrorists?) rather than for Obama.

I never liked Obama's campaign. the "Change we can believe in" and "Yes we can" (from Bob the Builder children's show no less) slogans make me cringe.

I also never liked how he was never specific in his speeches, until the very end. His speeches sounded inspiring, but little substance. A true politician I guess.

But on the other hand, he was good at limiting Lobbyists, because he was so good at being supported by large numbers of individual donors. Plus he seems very secular (my kind of guy) and comes off as actually educated and makes rational/pragmatic decisions (compared to Bush).

[SurfDemon]

We'll have some giggles when Obama fails to come through on ANY of the promises he made and Palin, or someone equally unlikely, comes in and steps all over his administration.

So, you're going to be laughing when your govenrment is full of lobyists and contracts are awarded because of the "ole buddy's" network...?

You'll be giggling yourself senseless if Al-Quaida attacks the US again and kills thousands of people?

You'll be snikering away when the economy continues to tank and destroys the economy?

I find it strange (and quite sad) that you would put your own personal hatred of this individual above the well-being of your country.

[zaza]

The fact is: Obama is extremely inexperienced and has never lead anything. His job as a senator was to do the will of the people and follow. Mccain has multiple years of military experience with leadership experience. Obama's own VP said that we're going to get a major incident in the first month or two after election. And i don't know how this plays into it, but for some reason Al Queda endorsed him as president. Is it because they know he's the weaker leader? We'll see.

True, but nobody is born with leadership experience. At some point, somebody has to go out on a limb and give you a leadership job without you having had the experience for it. I think it's fair to say that there isn't another job that he could do that would adequately prepare for the role of US President, military or big company boss included, so lets forget about the "experience" issue. What matters is whether he can step up to the plate and deliver.
As far as al Qaeda goes though, they have their own agenda and maybe by endorsing Obama they're playing a double bluff so that you vote Republican (who are much more pro-war, keep America unpopular and hated by the Islamic world, and play into their hands). Or maybe that's what they want you to think, and they really do want you to vote Obama....

If you go around listening to terrorists who have their own agenda, you'll just end up in a muddle. Either listen properly, which means getting them around a table and taking them seriously, or don't listen at all. But don't do it in half-hearted fashion so as to spin a political angle out of it. That's what got us in this mess in the first place.

[NotLKH]

I think Bob's response is pretty good.

http://www.wham1180.com/cc-common/me...obcast11.06.08

-Lou

[SurfDemon]

The fact is: Obama is extremely inexperienced and has never lead anything. His job as a senator was to do the will of the people and follow. Mccain has multiple years of military experience with leadership experience. Obama's own VP said that we're going to get a major incident in the first month or two after election. And i don't know how this plays into it, but for some reason Al Queda endorsed him as president. Is it because they know he's the weaker leader? We'll see.

I think the last thing you needed was another military leader..... look where that's got you so far. But by your definition of a senator (to follow), the only people who are experienced enough to lead the country are soldiers.... that's not a good thing (IMHO).

I also thought that Al-Quidea endorsed John McCain, not Obama....? Do you have any links to support this claim?