This is the pick of change.

1. Mrs. Palin adds dynamism and enthusiasm to a so far uninspiring campaign by Mr. McCain.  This exciting new twist may take the air out of the room after last night’s exceptionally well-received speech by Barack Obama.  Also, when contrasted with Mr. Obama’s largely boring and safe pick of Joe Biden, this pick is a grand-slam homerun.
2. Mrs. Palin is a highly successful female politician and will likely be an inspiration to many.  She may be a strong lure for Hillary Clinton supporters out there who are still unsure about Barack Obama. 
3. Mrs. Palin is a pick from the heart, not a pick from weakness by John McCain. It shows Mr. McCain as a risk taker, and will forever define his as a truly different kind of campaign.
4. Mrs. Palin has very strong conservative credentials- she has a son who will be serving in Iraq in September, she is a member of the NRA, she shelfed pork-barrel projects as Alaska governor, and she is strongly pro-life.
5. Mrs. Palin is a maverick and not a Washington-insider.  She exposed Republicans as having a “lack of ethics” during her brief tenure on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation in 2003 and 2004.  She has fought for ethics reform and against pork-barrel spending during her tenure as governor, even when it put her out of favor with her party.
6. Mrs. Palin has the kind of inspiring story a nation can get behind.  She’s a down-to-earth soccer mom, a mother of 5, and generally a snow-mobile riding, moose-burger eating, basketball playing, American success story.
7. Mrs. Palin is relatively new to the political scene and she does not bring much baggage.  Further, by not picking an adversary from the primaries, Mr. McCain does not have to worry about commercials showing his running mate arguing persuasively against his candidacy.
8. The Obama campaign is already harping on her inexperience, saying she will be a heart-beat away from the presidency with so little experience.  However, the only problem with the argument is that she WILL NOT BE the president herself.  The president would be John McCain, who has plenty of experience.  Mrs. Palin will have the luxury of being introduced to national foreign and domestic policy issues from a position other than the driver's seat.
9. And finally, even if McCain loses, he has positioned a young, up-and-coming game-changer in the Republican party for national exposure and future success. 

Impressive John McCain, impressive.

http://pollsb.com/polls/poll/2038906

The problem: who is going to empathize?

I do not know if anyone has actually conducted a poll about this, but I have grave doubts that in today's America very many people identify themselves as 'middle class' or even 'poor'.  I am not trying to weave a delusional quilt that portrays most Americans as well-off.  However in recent years it has been easy to secure personal debt (via credit cards and mortgages).  This, combined with the recent drop in prices of seemingly 'luxury' goods such as flat-screen televisions and portable electronics, and most Americans are buying things that 20 years ago would have been inconceivably expensive.  What I think this means is that most Americans don't even want to consider themselves as middle class.  This is shown by the last two presidential elections.  Even though the Democrats have been screaming about how the Bush tax cuts only favor the rich, people have consistently voted Republican.  Why is this the case?  I think that many people don't want to consider themselves 'poor', and they look at a small mutual fund account or 401k as something that should not be taxed and taken away by the government.

In short, I think that Obama will have a difficult time winning this election because no matter how tough things become, the idea of making a pitch to a large demographic ('working class' voters) is subverted by the strategy that appeals to the individual employed by the Republicans.  Republicans appeal to selfish, narrowly self-interested voters.  It does not take a lot of stereotyping to see Americans for what they are.  Narrow self interest and a so-called 'faith in the market' are hallmarks of American identity.  They will not be eradicated in the near future; worse still is the idea that by appealing to a sense of 'collective' will inevitably fail in a country that is more than anywhere else on earth interested in protecting the individual from the 'tyranny of the majority'.

On the Presidential Race:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows hints of a modest convention bounce building for Barack Obama. The Democrat gained a point from yesterday and now attracts 45% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 44%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 47% (see recent daily results).

On how Democratic women feel about the Obama-Biden ticket:

Nearly half of Democratic women (47%) say Barack Obama should have chosen Hillary Clinton for his running mate instead of Senator Joseph Biden as the former First Lady prepares to speak tonight at the Democratic National Convention. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that a sizable majority (57%) of Democratic women believe that Obama is the Democratic candidate who will do best against John McCain in the November election. See crosstabs by gender within party.

On the success of Democrat's relative to Republican's voter drives:

During July, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats fell two percentage points to 39.2%. That’s the first time since January that the number of Democrats has fallen below 41% (see history from January 2004 to present).

While the number of Democrats declined, there was virtually no change in the number of Republicans. In July, 31.6% said they were Republicans, the fourth straight month that number has been below 31.4% and 31.6%.

The Democrats now have a 7.6 percentage point advantage over the Republicans, down from a 9.5 percentage point advantage in June and 10.1 percentage points in May.

Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based upon telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002.

Among men, 34% are Democrats, 33% Republican. Forty-four percent (44%) of women are Democrats, and just 30% claim the GOP as their party.

Forty-one percent (41%) of government employees are Democrats while 31% are Republicans. Among entrepreneurs, 36% are Republican, 34% Democrat. Those who work for someone else in the private sector lean Democratic by a 38% to 31% margin.

In January and February, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were in the early stages of the battle for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, the number of Americans who considered themselves to be Democrats surged to record highs.

In 2004, the Democrats began the year with a 2.3 percentage point edge over the GOP. That grew to 4.0 points by March before moving in the Republican direction for the rest of the year. By Election Day in 2004, the edge for Democrats was a mere 1.6 percentage points.

In 2006, the Democrats began the year with just a 1.6 percentage point advantage. That grew to 6.1 percentage points by November.

On which Presidential Candidate is more trusted on National Security:

National security is the issue of the day at the Democratic National Convention, but it wasn’t supposed to be this way. Democrats were planning on riding opposition to the highly unpopular war in Iraq right into the White House.

Instead, Barack Obama is begrudgingly admitting the “surge” of additional troops into Iraq has worked, and Hillary Clinton told the convention Tuesday night that, if elected, Obama will “end the war … responsibly,” with no mention of a timetable.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters trust Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Obama on national security issues 52% to 41%.

Nationally, for weeks the race between the two men has been a dead heart in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, with oddly enough McCain showing slight momentum this week following the announcement of Joe Biden as Obama’s running mate.

Over half of voters (51%) also continue to believe that it is at least somewhat likely that the United States will win the war in Iraq if McCain is elected, while only 30% believe that to be the case should Obama win the White House. Sixty-one percent (61%) think the United States is not likely to win if Obama is elected, compared to 41% who feel that way about McCain.

At the same time, voter confidence in how America is fighting the War on Terror is at the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. The latest national telephone survey finds that 54% of voters now think the United States and its allies are winning the war. Just 19% of voters think the terrorists have the advantage, while 20% say neither is winning.

In terms of national security, male voters trust McCain over Obama 58% to 36%. Female voters, who in most polls heavily favor the Democrat, rank them virtually dead even. McCain leads by a wide margin in all age and income groups, except among those 18-29 and those earning less than $20,000 a year who trust Obama more.

Even 21% of Democrats trust McCain more on national security, compared to seven percent (7%) of Republicans who prefer Obama. Unaffiliated voters favor McCain 54% to 35%.

And on the electoral college race (state by state):

The latest wave of state-by-state polling, market data and national trends have pushed the Rasmussen Reports' Electoral College projections as close as our daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

The latest numbers from the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator show Obama leading in states with 193 Electoral College votes and McCain ahead in states with 183 Electoral College votes. Previously, Obama had enjoyed a 210–165 advantage.

Currently, states with 135 Electoral College votes are leaning slightly in one way or the other, and three states with a total of 27 votes -- Colorado, Nevada and Virginia -- are pure toss-ups.

A state-by-state "balance of power" chart is available HERE.

Here are the figures from the Nanos press release (PDF) for the wonky poll nerds and number crunchers out there.

Speaking of which, Steve V, Liblogs’ resident guru on such matters, has his usual astute analysis (and pleasing spin) regarding this latest poll. The most significant observation however comes from Nik Nanos himself: “If you look at the numbers, they really should not be having an election.” Hmmm. Perhaps Harper is reading a different set of entrails…

As usual, I’m utterly baffled by the stubborn constancy of these poll numbers. It’s simply astounding to me that after the better part of three years with a powerful wind of change originally at their back, a clear mandate before them, a mostly unfettered reign and the fiscal capacity to implement their key priorities and legislative agenda — which taken together, as this gibbering ninny incessantly reminds us, form a supposedly impressive list of so-called Accomplishments® — that the Conservative party is still unable to realize any improvement whatsoever in the polls from where they started in 2006.

It’s an especially puzzling mystery when it’s considered that the Harper government has been countered throughout their term by a largely ineffective opposition in the form of frequently rudderless, hapless Liberal Party still discredited by the taint of the past, headed by a little known, untested “leader” generally mocked and derided by the mainstream press, not to mention trashed by a steady barrage of negative advertising from the Conservative party, A pleasant enough fellow to be sure, but a callow, incomprehensible, vaguely effete egghead, out of touch with “average Canadians” and singularly unfit to arm wrestle with Vladimir Putin. Or so his critics would have people believe.

The question then naturally arises as to why Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have thus far failed to capture the imagination, affection, and most importantly, the trust of Canadians in sufficient numbers to give them their coveted majority. Any thoughts?

It is very obvious to me that Barack Obama is a better storyteller, a man who is pretty good at pulling at the heart strings, more than he is a great leader...or even a good politician.

After listening to his acceptance speech, I can honestly say that I DO NOT WANT THIS MAN TO LEAD THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Period, end of story.

I can say without equivocation that Barack Obama is a manufactured candidate...I do not know who is behind him and I am not absolutely certain who is pulling the strings behind the scenes...but something is just not right.

There is absolutely no substance to this man outside of his love for his daughters; everything else that he "champions" comes off as hollow and, well, just something that he is supposed to say.  He is a "pleaser", by nature, and I do not want a follower, pleaser, or however you want to describe it without having to "dash" some of the letters of the description to lead me, my sons, my family or my friends and neighbors into the next 4 years.

There is nothing that Barack Obama said tonight that hasn't been embraced by a million other Democratic candidates for President and the only one with any actual "skill" with the American people was Bill Clinton.

And Barack Obama, you are certainly no Bill Clinton.

Neither are you a Martin King, Jr., Alan Keyes, Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, etc.---all of these men have passion, conviction, knowledge and proof that they actually DID SOMETHING with the convictions that they held or still hold dear to their hearts.

Regarding the economy, you spoke of the loss of hope and horrible condition that America was in...ignoring the fact that negative growth in the economy has not occurred since the 9/11 and that today we found out that the U.S. GDP went up 3.3% in the last quarter.  You joked about how out of touch John McCain was regarding the economy for everyday folks...but tell us Barack Obama...when's the last time you went grocery shopping?  When was your last trip to the Home Depot to pick up a few light bulbs, some weed killer and some 2X4's?  Do YOU have a nanny that watches your kids before and after school for you and Michelle...or do you have to hope and pray for a huge tip as a waitress does so that you can stay at home when little Johnny is sick?

You talk of empathy...but you cannot have that unless you have lived the lives of others; in other words, it's better to just listen and offer encouragement, rather than pretend to perfectly "get it", as you say you do and McCain does not.

You talk of health care for everyone and that how everyone should have the same health care that every U.S. Senator or Representative has...but it would be a lot more genuine from you if you just were grateful for the health care that we all pay for you with our taxes rather than bankrupt our nation because you have to raise taxes so much in order to pay for all of us.

You talk about, echoing the same nonsense from Al Gore's speech, how if a Democrat or you would have been in office as President of the United States that you wouldn't have been afraid to go into those "mountains" and get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice; is there something that you know about Bin Laden's location that we don't?  How would you propose luring him out...perhaps a bag of Cheetos or would you use a little hummus and flat bread?  Don't you know that the reason the terrorists fled to the mountains is because they would always have the advantage militarily if an attack was waged upon them?

Or did General Petraeus inform you of a change to that basic philosophy of battle?

You talked about illegal immigration and how it's not right for America to split up a mother and a child who've crossed the border illegally and chosen to live here despite having broken the law...do you think Mexico or any other nation believes it's ok for Americans to do the same thing in their own backyards?  What would India, Japan, Brazil, Germany, Italy and Mexico say to that?

You talked about the need to embrace the gay and lesbian community...by letting them into the hospitals for a visit...wow, cool beans!  I am sure that "Ellen" will be excited to hear that strong endorsement of the GLBT community, a group who is banking on you and that has full confidence that you will finally give them their "equal" rights and end discrimination based on sexual behavior, once and for all...

You talked about Martin Luther King, Jr. and how his struggle was your struggle...and you couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, we know all about your upbringing and yes, we know about how you struggled with your bi-racial existence...but you never had to struggle like Martin Luther King, Jr.  In fact, it was because of him and so many others that you didn't have to worry about whether or not you would be able to afford your college education...schools would be begging for your admission because of your skin color, part of the debt that this generation is paying for because of the sins of the past, i.e. slavery and discrimination.

Instead of comparing yourself to Dr. King, and then changing your voice tonality to that of a preacher while you spoke of him, you should just be grateful, thankful that King, Jr. was not a follower, a "yes man", like you have been your whole life.

Because you have chosen the path of least resistance...a path that you knew you could tread without opposition...because you could always find a large group of people who would buy in to your "sob story" as you reminded them of the color of your skin, your single mom, your father who left you, etc.

And now you come before America and say that you understand the plight of the common man?  Do you think that Middle America even gives a darn about the idiocy of Global Warming? No...they just want enough money to cover their electric bill this month.  Do you think that Middle America wants you to guarantee their health care if you tell them what to eat, when to eat it, how much they can eat and then tax them up the ying-yang in order to pay for it?

Do you really think that from Generation X and on down that you can really talk to them (with a straight face) about the absolute solvency of Social Security?  Do you really think that we are even depending on that being what you called America's "retirement plan"? Talk about out of touch...most people have to invest little by little in the markets or otherwise in order to prepare for their futures, not rely on Social Security as our "retirement". The AUDACITY of some of these Americans...

You said you have everything, all of your grand schemes and plans budgeted down to the very last penny...at WHAT POINT would you actually like to share the numbers with the American people? Would you mind (same for John McCain, as well) actually outlining what you are going to do and how much it will cost...and then publish it for all to see before November 4th or do we just need to take your word for it?

You promised EVERYONE that EVERYTHING in our lives would be protected and that all of the things that we hold dear in our lives would be insured from harm and given every chance for success.

Seriously?  Do you really think that you can just tell some silly stories, prick at our hearts and then expect us to believe that crock of garbage?

You are not able to do that, Barack Obama...and neither is anybody else in this world! We don't want your nose in everything that we do, in every choice we make or every opportunity that we may want to seize upon...because what we want is someone who will follow the Constitution, do all that they can to provide a strong military with which to protect us from harm and give us the freedoms that we need in order to determine our own destiny, not a piggy-back ride from Barack Obama that will just lead to endless guilt trips, from you, after we achieve success with you whispering, "see, I knew we could help you...without us, you wouldn't have had the chance.  Now, about the payback that we need from you..."

The entire production of Barack Obama's acceptance speech was so contrived and blatantly over-the-top...and that was all by design.

Barack Obama will make it so that no one is homeless; Barack Obama will make it so that we will never see war again; Barack Obama will make it so that no matter how stupid or undeserving we are of a college education, we still get one; wherever there is a perceived injustice, Barack Obama will be there to right the wrong.

And on and on and on...and the worst part about it all is that Michelle and EVEN BARACK HIMSELF are starting to believe in their own B.S., actually believing that he is the Chosen One to lead America to the Promised Land, once again.

And so was the plan of whoever has been the designer of this manufactured candidate, Barack Obama, who is just a puppet with no backbone and no substance...but that will save YOU from those evil Republicans or other political parties who wish nothing more than to break your will and make your life miserable!

I've got news for you, Candidate Obama: you're no Moses, you're no Savior, you're no Martin Luther King, Jr. and you're not even the best person to lead coming from the Democratic Party... Hillary Clinton is and she proved that the other night with her speech, at the Convention.

And you are ABSOLUTELY NOT THE RIGHT PERSON TO LEAD AMERICA FOR THE COMING 4 YEARS...

We can only hope that the last 18 months of political Primaries was all a big hoax and that somehow we are just in a bad "Groundhog Day" film, where we keep waking up to the most inept candidates anyone could find..day after day after day...

I say, how about Bill Murray for President!

 Stanley Kurtz recently wrote an article about an organization that was founded by domestic terrorist and Barack Obama friend William Ayers (an organization that Barack Obama co-chaired) in which he tried to gain access to information that was supposed to be public. He was not allowed to gain access to these public records. Two weeks later the records were released, who knows what was either taken out or put in during that time.

 Because Stanley Kurtz had the audacity (of hope) to write and talk about something that is critical of the chosen one he is now the victim of smears by the Barack Obama campaign. Here is part of an email sent out by the Obama campaign:

"WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers."

 The email goes on to say the following:

At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies

 There is only one problem with that logic:

Christenson said the Obama campaign was asked to have someone appear on the show and declined the request.

 What a bunch of frauds.

  Obama has not yet won the presidency and already he is setting the table for the return of the fairness doctrine. It has already been stated by many prominent Democrats that the fairness doctrine needs to be re-implemented and the wheels are being set in motion.

 There was a time when debate was considered healthy, but that time has passed. WIth the television and print media being dominated by liberals the attention has to be turned to the last bastion of conservative media, talk radio.

 The smears of the Obama campaign are meant as a way to soften people up to the idea of giving up a little of their freedom of speech and the freedom of the press with the re-instituting of the fairness doctrine.

 The attack has begun.

 The Republican party is officially going to oppose amnesty for illegals but John McCain supports a so-called pathway to citizenship. What's the difference? There is none. Amnesty is amnesty by any other name. The Republicans are trying to save face on this issue, but the current president and the party's nominee to be the next president, both agree with the idea of granting amnesty to illegals. However the party understands how unpopular this idea is to the American people, we showed them last year when this issue came up, and there has been a gradual change in the  phraseology from amnesty to "a pathway to citizenship." It's the same thing. Who the hell cares what it is called, the end result will be the same.

 Republicans have decided that their best chance to win is to move to the left and that was proven by the party's nomination of a man who pissed on conservatives for the last eight years. They have decided to become more like Democrats, that is the only reason a man like John McCain could ever win the Republican nomination.

 With last year's outcry over the "immigration reform" bill, this should be an issue that Republicans could make gains on. But instead they have nominated the man who authored the doomed legislation. If only Republicans had learned from that debacle perhaps conservatives would not be in such an apathetic mood.

 It might sound good, it might look good on paper, but it is only words. What good does it do for Republicans to state that they are officially opposed to amnesty for illegals when everyone knows that the party's nominee is for granting amnesty to illegals? Everyone knows that John McCain authored this legislation with Ted Kennedy of all people.

 Words are one thing, actions are another. We all know the old cliche that actions speak louder than words and we have all seen John McCain's actions. He is for amnesty and it matter a god damned bit that the Republican party has officially decided to oppose it.

Billybob

rsnail

Screenhog

bobthejoe68(me)

"What online service (that does not exist today) do you need the most?"

Text CAST 568 and your answer to 41411

Thanks for your participation.

5 point lead for Obama (up from 1)
Obama by 16

1051 Star Trek Online fans in a recent poll ranked their all time favorite Star Trek Motion Pictures: 10% for Star Trek: Undiscovered Country, 12% for Star Trek: Nemesis, 21% for Star Trek:The Wrath of Kahn, and a whopping 31% for Star Trek: First Contact. Yes! All excellent movies in the Star Trek franchise.

Unbelievably, the Search for Spock and the Final Frontier received a combined 2% of the vote, which clearly demonstrates that 21 of those that voted are Ferengi.

Where the hell have the other 18% been?

Please allow me to make it perfectly clear. According to Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Israel will be wiped off the map. Destroyed. Gone. Would a direct quote from Ahmadinejad himself help? He said that Israel "will soon be erased from the geographical scene."

So, next time this question is asked, let's try for 100%. Okay?