The Hot Blog

Awesome article. Great writing. Love the picture. Do you believe the idea that many outlets were saying that Republicans went in and voted for Hillary because they want her to get in because they feel they're better prepared to beat her in the general?

I know it's only anecdotal, but I live in the suburbs of Dallas in the highly conservative Collin County and I don't personally know any Republicans who crossed over to vote for Hillary.

There were a few Republicans I know (including myself) who voted in the Democratic primary for Obama, though.

But I realize my experience is useless in determining any overall trend, etc.

Exit polling shows few Republicans crossed over, and most of those voted for Obama. At least according to what MSNBC and CNN said last night.

"Do you believe the idea that many outlets were saying that Republicans went in and voted for Hillary..."

Until true blue progressives can accept defeat without having to always blame the evil Republican conspiracy they will always have an uphill battle.

It allows them the fatal mistake of having to actually analyze what they might have did wrong. The problem is, most progressives are more comfortable thinking they are perfect and others are either stupid, corrupt or evil.

Obama slipped for many reasons and he - is - a better person than Hillary who comes from the most sleazy side of American politics. But he also got by on a lot of steam and hot air. That sceond Will.i.am video...he should ask his more ardent supporters to can it. On a long enough timeline it hurts.

Obama now has to be seen as a man of true intellectual ideas, not just a man of platitudes. He also has to be seen as a man of strength. Real strength.

I do not think Obama is out and I do think he can still be president...for better or worse. But I think he and his supporters envisioned a bit of a cake walk and got ahead of themselves. In the latest Ramussen polls McCain is beating him. Even I was surprised by that. But it is true.

For the record Nicol, according to RealClearPolitics, Obama has an almost five point lead over McCain.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Also, a recent Washington Times article stated that Obama is nearly as popular as McCain with Republicans. Not exactly a liberal rag.

Nicol and I are on essentially polar opposites of the ideological spectrum, but (aside from the "progressives think they're perfect" comment) I pretty much agree with everything he said.

Obama has done a spectacular job of organizing and getting his supporters to the polls. What he hasn't done well is manage the rhetoric and expectations of his supporters. The mark has been set so high for Obama that a fairly minor setback for him in Ohio and Texas is supposedly disastrous.

Clinton has lost the campaign. There's just no way anymore for her to achieve victory without shenanigans. The only question now is if she can take Obama down with her.

"The problem is, most progressives are more comfortable thinking they are perfect and others are either stupid, corrupt or evil."

If this is true Nicol, then one could make the same claim about conservatives (especially religious ones).

"These hard moments are when we see the true beauty of greatness… or the sad, sad death of the dream that greatness can still exist in our cynical times."

Is this referring to whether Obama wins or not? It really seems you are all in before the flop with this guy. He is just a POLITICIAN. Even He PANDERS, even He UNDERSTATES, OVERSTATES, and EVADES. The Emperor has no clothes.

mysteryperfecta, are you over the moon about John McCain? Is he your dream candidate and everything you ever hoped for in a politician?

"Also, a recent Washington Times article stated that Obama is nearly as popular as McCain with Republicans."

Which is to say that they don't like either all that much.

All I am saying is this...I do not think Obama is a bad man, but I do think his supporters have made him into a sort of secular messiah.

As mystery said, he is a politician with all of the flaws and foibles that means.

If he does make the nomination, he still has a real shot at the presidency but it will not be the cake walk he and his supporters think. He has not shown yet that he can stand up to hard questioning...

...and I can tell you, the Canadian/NAFTA issue did hurt him and it was not a conspiracy on the part of Stephen Harper.

I think most Obama supporters are rational human beings who fully realize that he is human and flawed. It's why I asked mystery if he believes McCain to be perfect and his dream candidate. I highly doubt it. You two love going negative and take shots at Obama and Dems every chance you get, but I have no idea what/who you actually admire/support.

The thing is, Mystery - besides you sounding like King Herod - that while Obama does do things that other politicians do, he does it a lot less than the others.

Honestly, I think McCain is about the only Republican figure who similarly carries that air of, as Obama said, "straight talk and independent thinking." But his thinking leans further right than I do.

But back to you...

The place you lose me is that your idea is that the emperor has NO clothes. If you said that the emperor had scuffed shoes and patches on his pants and that his crown was missing, I'd buy that. The endless insistence by both the right and the Clinton camp that Obama has NO clothes is The Big Lie of the race right now... not about race... but of the race.

None of three have gotten that 3am call as a leader of a nation or a state of any size. Clinton openly admits how close their policy ideas are. And ironically, it is McCain's left-leaning positions that make him a real threat to steal Democratic votes if Dems are disenchanted after this race gets uglier and uglier.

But NO Clothes? Bullshit.

he most fascinating thing the Democratic and Republican process has done is show the fracturing of both parites at this point in history.

On the right...libertarians are at odds with Christians...fiscal conservatives are at odds with the spending of non-fiscal conservatives. Pro war vs anti-war etc.

Om the left, identity politics has been shown to be every bit as divisive as anything on the right. Women go for Hillary. Blacks go for Obama. Hispanics have issues with Obama. Feminists feel betrayed because people do not vote Hillary. Well educated and wealthy Democrats who vote Obama look down on the poorer and blue collar Dems who are rooting for Hillary. The anti-war Obama crowd goes against the more hawkish Hillary crowd.

Overall both parties are extremely fractured right now. But conservatives are used to that in the right. I think it is sending some shock waves through the left.

Okay. So...

Two things real quick.

1) Whatever Hillary is doing (or being accused of) to Obama, she's wearing gloves. She has to, they're both Democrats. The Republicans will use brass knuckles against him.

2) I'm perfectly content with the observation that he deserves everything he's getting right now, regardless of whether he ultimately wins. He wasn't supposed to be a factor in this election cycle, not for another 4-8 years. The fact that he arrogantly jumped into the election when everybody knew this was Hillary's shot, does speak of his character. And now she's punishing him for that, as she has every right to.

Mutinyco,

I do not know that anyone can really blame him for jumping the gun on Hillary. I think he probably realized that letting Hillary have a free reign and possible getting to be president would hurt him more than help.

A Hillary win in November will produce a presidency every bit as divisive and hurtful as anything in the Bush years. I would bet even more.

Then, in 4 or 8 years, people will let a Republican in again for maybe 2 terms. This puts Obama off for potentially as long as 16 years depending on how you do the math. It also means that there could be another full African American candidate who wins in that time. We do not know.

I suspect, Obama and his team looked at the lay of the land and realized that this election was as easy as it will be for any Democrat to win in the near future. After that...would be much more difficult.

I don't disagree with any of that. Obviously that was his reasoning. What I think he's repeatedly miscalculated, however, is Hillary's reasoning.

Great column, Dave!

One of the biggest problems for me in the dirty politicking of Hillary is not the fact that she's trying to take down Obama - this is politics and it's a fight - but she's using the boogeyman of Islam to do it. Clicking on any of those articles on the primaries off of Drudge where they have talkbacks, you read over and over and over again the posts by anti-Obama posters who just stay on message - Obama's a Muslim, Obama's a Muslim, etc. I don't even mean that photograph in Kenyan tribal dress - without that even, there's just been this neverending disinformation campaign that FURTHER DEMONIZES ISLAM.

We've been through 8 years of an administration that directs itself as if it's something of a Christian Crusade against Muslims - us vs. them - and it's carried into the global debate, turning moderates into fanatics on both sides.

For Hillary Clinton's campaign - and, ultimately, she is responsible for what's being said in her name and it's not like she's denounced the tactics as, well, they're working - to use Islam as a hot button (no offense to your column there, David), I find, is just as anti-American as a lot of Bush's dirty tricks.

Suxxors.

My point is that, while a lot of people are blaming Hillary for what's going on now, I look at it as the opposite. This was Hillary's shot and she was determined to win. She was going to do what she had to. Period. Obama simply miscalculated her resolve. And the ensuing battle is not because she's some evil person, but because somebody came in to steal her thunder.

What most of you don't get - along with the MSM bonehead pundits -- is that ther are voters out there who planned to vote for Clinton all along. None of your dreamy Obama worship changes that.

The attack ads were meaningless, Obama has multi-millions over Clinton and she won Ohio and Texas.
Plus kidz, there are an awful lot of bigots still in this country.

And my big point is that women are going to swing this election away from the male power base. And Obama can't fight that with sleazy ads.

It's coming into focus now and nobody's seeing it. The math says neither Obama or Hillary can win. And the campaigns indicate neither are willing lose. It'll be the fiercest political draw since Florida in 2000.

The convention will be brokered. And I'm guessing "the loser" of the Florida 2000 draw will end up being the Democratic nominee.

Welcome back Al Gore.

Look, as much as the Obamaites would have us believe that a new day of politics is upon us, swiftboating is here to stay, and if it didn't happen now to Obama, it was going to happen in the general election when the Republicans pull out all the stops. If Obama can respond and pull his campaign out without looking like he sustained a major blow, then he'll be a good nominee who can survive a general campaign. If he can't take what is being dished at him now, the Democrats need someone who can fight dirty and win... which would make Hillary the right choice. Ultimately, for the Democratic primary voters, it should be about who can win. Right now, I don't know who is better as both candidates have their strengths and drawbacks in potential to win.

Nicol, the one thing that you've said that nobody else has pointed out is that the Democratic party right now really isn't seriously fractured. I heard on the news yesterday a statistic that said that 70% of Democratic voters in the primaries were willing to vote in the November election for whichever candidate they were voting against yesterday. Unlike the Republican side, there isn't a deep ideological gulf between the two candidates, it's all about personality and management style. If there is a division, it'll be because the candidates follow a scorched earth plan to the convention.

This is a very good column and could easily be cross-posted on serious political blogs.

Nicol said, "Until true blue progressives can accept defeat without having to always blame the evil Republican conspiracy they will always have an uphill battle." Perhaps this is true, but remember that there has been a recent campaign by Rush Limbaugh asking Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary. I'm sure it was tongue in cheek, but people have a tendency to take that stuff seriously whether for good or bad.

wrecktum:

the exit polls showed that rush's suggestion didn't happen. indeed, if republicans crossed over, they were more likely to vote obama.

All things said and done, this battle is probably a good thing for the Democrats. The news will continue to cover Clinton and Obama while McCain has little of note to do except wait until the GOP convention officially nominates him.

Hillary has lost. It's over. Yet we have to deal with this woman and her hideous minions for weeks to come, because they refuse to accept the fact that SHE HAS LOST! She has lost in a way in which there is no coming back.

Yet these crazy people want to carry the primaries until April, or possibly to June. If the primaries even get that far. Neither Democratic candidate will have any steam left because people will CEASE TO CARE ABOUT THIS POINTLESS TRENCH BATTLE IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. Especially in light of the fact that the people will slowly begin to understand that HILLARY HAS LOST.

Once they realize it's over on a mass scale. The people will enjoy their returning TV shows, and the upcoming Summer films. While the Democrats carry on with this FINITO primary season like a bunch of crazy people. Fucking morons. They have the first candidate to inspire people in decades, and let the SCREECHER throw the kitchen sink at him. Freakin Howard Dean.

Ding Dong. Ding Dong. The Witch is dead. Can someone tell her? Please?

Ah, but she hasn't lost. Her goal is to make it to the convention, then pull out the win through her superdelegate lead and negotiations.

As an Irishman, i.e. non American, I really cannot comment on this matter. Still I find myself agreeing with this great piece. And I love the Elvis Costello quote.

"the exit polls showed that rush's suggestion didn't happen. indeed, if republicans crossed over, they were more likely to vote obama."

Yes, I understand. I was responding to Nicol who stated "Until true blue progressives can accept defeat without having to always blame the evil Republican conspiracy they will always have an uphill battle." He was responding to rockne's "Do you believe the idea that many outlets were saying that Republicans went in and voted for Hillary because they want her to get in because they feel they're better prepared to beat her in the general?"

Jeff; I know she feels this way, but people will not give a crap in the coming weeks. I simply do not believe this bollocks about people enjoying these primaries. How can they enjoy something that's over? Seriously? It's over, but I have to wait until June for it to be called? I call shenanigans, jeff. Serious shenanigans on the democratic party.

It's not over till it's over, and it's not going to be over until (a) one candidate calls it quits, or (b) the convention.
You will also notice that, even though Clinton can't get up to 2025 committed delegates in the remaining contests, neither can Obama. The numbers at this point only matter for their psychological advantages.

wrecktum:

i know what you were doing. it's just the comment didn't make sense in relation to the facts.

IO & jeff:

there's a third possibility. another candidate can rear his/her head at the convention. after all, the delegates won in the primaries are only required to vote in favor of their candidate in the first round. hence the superdelegate gambit now being played by both obama and clinton. if someone shows up in the convention that provides a solid alternative to both those candidates, he/she can rally support.

so, far from over.

I'm cheering for Hillary. Bitch is now showing her true bitchy colors and it works. I don't mind seeing people fight dirty. It's the same as shouting out a bunch of empty promises.

nice piece Dave. But I really don't want this moment defining me as an American. I am really hoping that the Hillbilly's wife steps down. I thought She should be the Pres in 1992 since she had more sense than her worse "ho" half. She also was a great lawyer in her time too so she has brains, no doubt there.

She at least knows quality technocrats in medicine and technologies so she could help Barack pick a good cabinet of advisors. Barack doesn;t need experience, he needs a good people picker so he can be the Prez.

When people say he isn;t experienced that cracks me up...experienced at what? Being a better liar? How many governors have been done and have been prosecuted for embezzling and fraud etc in the last 10 years? I say we need inexperience and we need it fast with Afghanistan and Iraq removing many billions out of the coffers. Yeah "experience" is good for pickpockets.

Hilary or McCain will be just one more hardened politician in the white house who really don't get anymore how average people live. But they're "experienced".

The only experienced old guy I'd want on the Hill is Mark Hatfield and it's too late for him.

Jeff; it's still bullshit. She will walk away. If she does not, the Dems will have to decide if they want to disenfranchise the entire youth and black vote. Let's see how daft they are when faced with that decision.

"It's the same as shouting out a bunch of empty promises." It's called a "STUMP SPEECH" . The SCREECHER gives one every day as well, but she's simply giving the democratic version of FEAR POLITICS. While one brother is trying to use hope, inspiration, and change as a rallying point for a country that needs all three to wash off eight years of W's shit.

If you think they are empty speeches. You really need to get a handle on how politics work. Before you make such ridiculous statements online or in every day life.

Dave --

You make it abundantly clear that you live in La-La Land. Serioulsy, you buy everything Obama is selling?

Oh, that's right, you loved "Phantom of the Opera" as well.

Phantom of the Opera is a class flic, pellic. Again; what is Obama selling? HOPE... CHANGE... A CHANCE TO DECLARE "I AM AN AMERICAN" ABROAD AND NOT BEING GIVEN DIRTY LOOKS (or worse) FOR IT. What kind of demented and twisted git does one have to be to find that message a bad thing? Is it wrong to want a president that would actually try to work with Republicans instead of treating them like blood enemies? Is it wrong to want a president that would EMBARK on some FOREIGN policy that's not based around such a jingoistic slant, that the people we are dealing with may want to work with us? Is any of this crazy to you? If it is... I have no idea why BELIEVING IN THE POSSIBILITY OF GREATNESS of bringing LIGHT TO THE DARKNESS is such a bad thing. Oh I forgot. We some how overcame a terrorist attack and the death of a major city to become even more cynical and jaded. Look at that... another reason why OBAMA is a better choice than the SCREECHER.

Looks like Obama is going to win Texas afterall.

Saturday is going to be a killer day for him between those final results, and Wyoming.

Math is the new momentum, and Math isn't on her side.

IOI, how is it that you use 'brother' and 'git' in successive posts? I don't understand how that works.

"We can still hope in this country, right?"

I was with the piece until that line. Spare me.

"But NO Clothes? Bullshit."

You're right; it was an inadequate analogy, especially as literally as you applied it. Moreover, the crowd saw that the emperor had no clothes, and cheered anyway. Here, the opposite seems true. Obama knows who he is-- its the crowd that sees the regalia.

I wasn't suggesting that Obama was a fraud. I merely suggested that he's a typical politician. It may seem like stating the obvious, but... is it?

Also, I wouldn't trust exit polls to determine whether Republicans crossed over to vote for Hilary, as Rush lobbied for. The Republicans I heard that admitted doing so said they had to declare themselves a Democrat to vote for Hilary, and it wasn't something they enjoyed. It makes it less likely that they would admit as much to a pollster.

Finally, I saw a study by a non-partisan group claiming that 53% of news coverage of Hilary was positive, while 83% of news coverage of Obama was positive. I don't know how one distinctly quantifies 'positive', but I would assume that the measures were applied with some consistency. My point being, Hilary has some latitude to whine about recent news coverage (although I wish she wouldn't).

IO:

you are very passionate about obama. i have no desire really to change that view. i have not read obama's site as suggested (not that i won't i just haven't found the time) so i'm going to try not to deal with the substance of the man's message. i am going to talk about the message though.

yes "hope" is a good word. hope for what? "change" is not necessarily a good word and needs a modifier. change to what? change simply from what is is not good enough in my mind. i want a plan. (again, it may be there, but i think the message flawed if one must search out that plan in other places or at least raises a red flag). bringing light to the darkness is a wonderful phrase, specifics please.

as to your foreign policy comments, who exactly are you refering to when you suggest there are people who might want to be dealing with us? i think i understand what you are getting at, but i don't want to put words in your mouth.

your position is obvious to you because you see the cynicism and the darkness and believe that's how it is. valid thought process. however, not everyone agrees with those base assumptions. you can dismiss them if you want, but then why are you promulgating anything? you can't be upset if someone dismisses your point of view if you dismiss theirs.

My favorite version of Phantom of the Opera is the one with Herbert Lom and Michael Gough.

Well, Hops... that is the argument on the other side.

And now, they are whining some more, namecalling because the opposing side is asking for details about actual issues, no boogeymen designed to scare people and to degrade anyone but Hillary, essentially endorsing McCain if Obama gets the nomination.

But the hope line was a direct comment on the other side's rhetoric against hope, as hope was working against them a week ago.

While filmfan... must be a Hillary person... cheap shots and no substance. Nice.

Nicol, mysteryperfecta, I'm curious (and serious, for the record). Here's a scenario. My parents are almost 60 and very moderate politically. My mom voted for Bush twice. My dad voted for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Neither one likes Bush now (mostly because of Iraq) and they feel that McCain is more of the same and will not vote for him. However, neither one likes Clinton or her husband and they do not want to vote for her. They like what Obama has to say, but like many have concerns about his experience. How do you counsel voters like that?

Let's do this shit MCWEENEY STYLE!

"IO:"

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyesssssss?

"you are very passionate about obama. i have no desire really to change that view. i have not read obama's site as suggested (not that i won't i just haven't found the time) so i'm going to try not to deal with the substance of the man's message. i am going to talk about the message though."

A message of hope and change unlike Hillary's message, that prefers McCAIN over OBAMA! You really going to defend a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE that has that opinion? Really?

"yes 'hope' is a good word. hope for what? ;'change' is not necessarily a good word and needs a modifier. change to what? change simply from what is is not good enough in my mind. i want a plan."

He has a plan. He has a lot of plans. If you listened to one of his speeches after a freakin primary/caucus night. You would get the message. So like every other geek on the net; you are HATING ON SOMETHING -- in this case someone -- WITHOUT KNOWING JACK OR SHIT ABOUT HIM! Good lord man. Get a handle on your political knowledge life.

"(again, it may be there, but i think the message flawed if one must search out that plan in other places or at least raises a red flag). bringing light to the darkness is a wonderful phrase, specifics please."

What does Hillary bring? What does she bring? She brings nothing but the same old shit people have had to deal with in this country for years. She's only getting wins in these states because the women are scared, the older hispanics are nervous, and the really old people are as scared of you of the word "CHANGE."

"as to your foreign policy comments, who exactly are you refering to when you suggest there are people who might want to be dealing with us? i think i understand what you are getting at, but i don't want to put words in your mouth."

There are crazy ass people out there, that may not be as crazy assed. If we took the time to sit down at the table. How can you decry a nation and it's leader. When they actually give you some time? The US needs a better tact with our diplomacy. Hillary offers up eight more years of the same old diplomacy. While Obama seemingly wants to act as if this is the 21st century, we are all more connected than ever, and maybe she should act that way with one another on a grander diplomatic scale.

"your position is obvious to you because you see the cynicism and the darkness and believe that's how it is. valid thought process. however, not everyone agrees with those base assumptions. you can dismiss them if you want, but then why are you promulgating anything? you can't be upset if someone dismisses your point of view if you dismiss theirs."

I am not dismissing anything. I just have more knowledge about this situation than you do. It's that simple.

I am also a registered voter in these United States that does his best to keep up on the haps of his nation. I know that W is doing to this country, what he did to every company he ever ran. This country needs a CHANGE. I ask again; WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH HOPE, CHANGE, AND A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD? WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH THAT?

i don't HATE obama. i don't even hate him. nothing i've said above was "HATING ON" him. hyperbole much?

i dislike hillary and will not vote for her. other than that i am making up my mind. i am very familiar with politics. i have an above average understanding of the world. i have travelled it extensively, but i'm not going to get in a debate over personal experiences (especially in light of the international posters here).

what i'm not going to do is jump to conclusions in march when i have to vote in november. your the one trying to convince me and doing a poor job of it so far. maybe you could insult me a little more...

i've heard the speeches. they lack substance. the slogan is "yes, we can." which to me begs the question yes we can what? it's purposefully left undefined to allow the reader to put in the answer. it's sleight of hand.

so, to me, the method of getting the message out is lacking. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE ISN'T A MESSAGE THERE. use some of that superior knowledge to tell the difference.

there's nothing wrong with hope, change or a better understanding of the world. how? i've asked this question twice of you so far. once in a previous post and once today. you have yet to give an answer outside of talking points. i'm beginning to think you don't have one. just like i noticed you stayed vague on what country and which leader "might be wanting to deal with us."

"Nicol, mysteryperfecta, I'm curious (and serious, for the record). Here's a scenario. My parents are almost 60 and very moderate politically. My mom voted for Bush twice. My dad voted for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Neither one likes Bush now (mostly because of Iraq) and they feel that McCain is more of the same and will not vote for him. However, neither one likes Clinton or her husband and they do not want to vote for her. They like what Obama has to say, but like many have concerns about his experience. How do you counsel voters like that?"

Its a good question, and I'll try to answer sufficiently with the details you provided. Its going to be difficult, though, because its impossible for me to glean where they are in terms of principles, based on your description.

I would first ask what, if any, substantiative reason(s) led them to vote for Bush. I'll assume attitudes about the war led your father to Kerry. You mother is more of an enigma, in that a second vote for Bush seems to be a vote for staying the course.

I would ultimately focus on their current attitudes about what is best in Iraq. Do they see it best to fulfill our obligations, considering that most now agree that Iraq is improving? Or are they now convinced our presence is what agitates matters, and only our departure will hasten stability?

Beyond that, I see in your parents no overt idealogical convictions that favor one side of the aisle over the other. I don't know what a 'moderate' is. Are they fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or vice versa? I cannot see a person who considers themselves 'conservative' favoring Obama, excepting some gross malfeasance by his opponent.

Dave, you are right. I am, indeed, a Hillary fan. I can defend her with points and substance all day long. Just as I am sure you can defend Obama against Nafta-gate, Rezko, the Power's "monster" comment and such. You know, all those great 'hopeful' issues.
However, my main feeling is this: I LOVE your columns and all you have to say about film and the art of movie-making. With the internet so full of the silly season of politics these days I really appreciate being able to get away from it and escape to the world of the movies. I just found it upsetting that even here there is no escape.

I did go light on details for the sake of discussion. I didn't want to ramble on too long. For starters, though Iraq is important, it is hardly the only issue that matters to them. My father has become something of an environmentalist and in his opinion the Republican party doesn't care at all about that issue, which matters to him. The economy and (especially) health care are important to them as well. My father recently said that he has not been presented with a compelling argument to vote for McCain. I would have to agree with that assessment. "If you think Iraq is going well now, vote McCain." Is that all he's got?

"I would have to agree with that assessment. "If you think Iraq is going well now, vote McCain." Is that all he's got?"

Its a little early to be asking that, don't ya think? Its nearly eight months before he ultimately has to decide. There's still a ways to go in the primaries. If he's looking for a GOP environmentalist, McCain probably tops that list. If he pays any attention at all between now and November, he'll become very aware of McCain's positions on issues he cares about.

He is paying attention, and he strongly disagrees with McCain's position on Iraq. He is not a single-issue voter though, and he remains undecided at this point. Can you really blame someone for not being all that enthused about a John McCain presidency?

I'm not all that enthused.

Well, that's something we both can agree on then.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)