It Ain't Over Unless You Think It's Over

via Jules

Comments

[Lala]

Since Jules brought up RealClearPolitics -

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/10/from-radarsite-to-real-clear-politics.html

Most Voted in Last 7 Days
8 Lawsuits Filed on Obama Birth Certificate Issue It is my understanding that this article was unfairly removed by RCP. I am therefore reposting it under Radarsite's banner. We shall see...
Submitted By Dodgerg - Oct 23, 8:03 pm
62 votes

re: An Open Letter to RCP: More Complaints Radarsite has received additional complaints on this subject, but as of now no replies from RCP.
Submitted By Dodgerg - Oct 23, 5:44 pm
38 votes
-------------------------------

[Andy B]

Read these excerpts from an Wikipedia entry of the United States presidential election, 1948. Here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_presidential_election#The_fall_campaign. I think you'll find it eerily similar to this years election in many ways.

Given Truman's sinking popularity and the seemingly fatal three-split in the Democratic Party, Dewey appeared unbeatable. Top Republicans believed that all their candidate had to do to win was to avoid major mistakes; in keeping with this advice, Dewey carefully avoided risks.

He spoke in platitudes, avoided controversial issues, and was vague on what he planned to do as President. Speech after speech was filled with non-political, optimistic assertions of the obvious, including the now infamous quote "You know that your future is still ahead of you."

An editorial in The (Louisville) Courier-Journal summed it up best: "No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead."

Truman, trailing in the polls, decided to adopt a slashing, no-holds-barred campaign. He ridiculed Dewey by name, criticized Dewey's refusal to address specific issues, and scornfully targeted the Republican-controlled 80th Congress with a wave of relentless, and blistering, partisan assaults.

He nicknamed the Republican-controlled Congress as the "do-nothing" Congress, a remark which brought strong criticism from GOP Congressional leaders (such as Senator Taft), but no comment from Dewey. In fact, Dewey rarely mentioned Truman's name during the campaign, which fit into his strategy of appearing to be above petty partisan politics.

Truman simply ignored the fact that Dewey's policies were considerably more liberal than most of his fellow Republicans, and instead he concentrated his fire against the conservative, obstructionist tendencies of the unpopular 80th Congress. For his part, Dewey remained aloof. Following the advice of his campaign staff, he did not respond directly to Truman's attacks. This would prove to be a major mistake.

------------------------------

Truman toured -- and transfixed -- much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. "Give 'em hell, Harry," was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. However, the polls and the pundits all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable, and that Truman's efforts were for naught. Indeed, Truman's own staff considered the campaign a last hurrah.

The only person who appears to have considered Truman's campaign to be winnable was the President himself, who confidently predicted victory to anyone and everyone who would listen to him. However, even Truman's own wife had private doubts that her husband could win.

-------------------------------

In the final weeks of the campaign, American movie theatres agreed to play two short newsreel-like campaign films in support of the two major-party candidates; each film had been created by its respective campaign organization.

The Dewey film, shot professionally on an impressive budget, featured very high production values, but somehow reinforced an image of the New York governor as cautious and distant.

The Truman film, hastily assembled on virtually no budget by the perpetually cash-short Truman campaign, relied heavily on public-domain and newsreel footage of the President taking part in major world events and signing important legislation.

Perhaps unintentionally, the Truman film visually reinforced an image of the President as engaged and decisive.

--------------------------------------

On election night - November 2 - Dewey, his family, and campaign staff confidently gathered in the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to await the returns. Truman, aided by the Secret Service, sneaked away from reporters covering him in Kansas City and made his way to nearby Excelsior Springs, Missouri, a small resort town. There he took a room in the local hotel, had a Turkish bath, and went to sleep.

As the returns came in Truman took an early lead which he never lost. However, the leading radio commentators, such as H. V. Kaltenborn of NBC, confidently predicted that once the "late returns" came in Dewey would overcome Truman's lead and win.

At midnight, Truman awoke and turned on the radio in his room; he heard Kaltenborn announce that, while Truman was still ahead in the popular vote, he couldn't possibly win. Around 4 a.m. Truman awoke again, heard on the radio that his lead was nearly two million votes, and decided to ride back to Kansas City.

For the rest of his life Truman would gleefully mimic Kaltenborn's voice predicting his defeat throughout that election night. Dewey, meanwhile, realized that he was in trouble when early returns from New York and New England showed him running well behind his expected vote total. He stayed up throughout the night examining the votes as they came in.

By 10:30 the next morning he was convinced that he had lost; he then sent a gracious telegram of concession to Truman.

[Lala]

Which New York paper had Dewey as the winner on the front page?

[Lala]

My mistake, it was an Illinois paper

[jharp]

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum: "There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him... I could pile up the poll numbers here, but frankly... it's too depressing. You have to go back to the Watergate era to see numbers quite so horrible for the GOP."

[rightwingprof]

You know, that American Spectator (er, Digest?) article makes one point I've made many times. In the same post, even, bloggers will first discuss how in the tank the media are for Obama, then turn around and talk about how inevitable Obama is and how McCain is going down, and cite the same media as evidence. Are these people on drugs, or do they want McCain to lose the election?

November 4. Vote. I'm working the polls. If there's any funny stuff (I doubt it -- this is a pretty conservative township), I'll document it.

[Lala]

Russia is sending over observers, maybe you'll have the pleasure of their company.

[jharp]

rightwingprof,

I don't think they are on drugs.

It is simply liars having trouble keeping track of their lies.

[BobinStamford]

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen - John McCain is no Harry Truman

Better get your compasses patriots - the WILDERNESS awaits!!

[mary]

we are definitely in some kind of parallel universe this election cycle.

[BobinStamford]

How sad.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14942.html

No one likes that little old man.

[eller]

Have you seen the cover of this month's Vogue? There's a cover story titled "All the Vice President's Women: Four Generations of Biden Beauties." Guess the Vogue editors think the election is over!!

[Lala]

Dem Pollster: Forget the Rest - It’s Down to Colorado, New Hampshire and a Chunk of Maine

http://patriotroom.com/?p=3398

[mark l.]

q: polls were very good in 04, why shouldn't they be as accurate now?

The polls on average were excellent in predicting the final result, but their weighting was discordant with actual turnout. Was it a fluke that they were right?

let's take a gander at the poll averages of generic advantage from 2004:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/generic_vote.html

the generic advantage in polls of dems to republicans was democrats +11.2 points(48.6-37.4).

the result?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Voter_demographics

37-37. no generic advantage for democrats. The polls were accurate in their final outcome, but they also failed to predict with any accuracy the actual nature of turnout along politcal affilation. The polls in 04, despite the end result, overstated democratic support by 24%.

What do the numbers look like right now?

uncanny in their similarity to 04.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html#polls

dems 47.3-gop37.8, a margin that provides less of a generic advantage for dems, +9.5, with dem support slightly lower, and generic gop support actual higher than 04.

This is rather impossible to reconcile with the idea that congress has an approval rating that is half of the approval of congress in 04. Support for both parties remains static in the face of a record lows in direction of country and congressional job approval?

The one distinction between 04 and 08, is that democrats control congress, and yet their generic is the same, INCORRECT IN 04, number? The polls are oversampling, based on an assumption that was proven wrong 4 years ago...
waht makes anyone think they have it right now?

dems 47.3-gop 37.8. The dems are actually below

[mark l.]

another funny thing about the generic number:

2004, generic dem support:48.6
2004, actual candidate support:48.3

offyear?
2006, genric dem support: 52.1
2006, actual result, based on congressional vote?: 53.6.

2008, generic dem support:47.3.

The polls are uniquely gifted in stating, with accuracy the actual democratic support, which matches their final results.

If the accuracy of their generic number in regards to dems is 1.5pts lower than 04, where the number was within .3 of the final result, why should I assume that the result will be different?

Obama 47, mccain 53.

[jharp]

Dem Pollster: Forget the Rest - It’s Down to Colorado, New Hampshire and a Chunk of Maine

http://patriotroom.com/?p=3398

Posted by: Lala | Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 02:57 PM

You are a liar. It was not a Dem Pollster. It was one anonymous person who works for a dem pollster.

And even if it was true Obama is crushing McCain in Colorado, And I'm sure this is good news for McCain too.

Obama's Denver Event Today: Police Say More than 100,000 Attended

[WBestPresidentEver]

It aint over til it's over ! I remain hopeful til Nov. 4th.

"IF" that many attended some rally in Colorado today that Kool aide they are serving must be some special kind of stuff. Ha. Those people are brain dead idiots.

[mark l.]

"You are a liar. It was not a Dem Pollster. It was one anonymous person who works for a dem pollster."

getting emotional?
I smell a twinge of fear.

the phrase you use may haunt you..."one anonymous person". In the voting booth we have the luxury of all being-

one anonymous person.

Some of the larger implication made in the article are quite valid. I'm looking at state polling from places like PA, if the sample is 52% dem, it matches obama's support. He is drawing next to nothing in support from independents and republicans. McCain still struggles, but then if you called my house and asked me if I like McCain, I'd tell you honestly, NO.

but I also early voted for the turd on Saturday.

[jharp]

You are completely full of shit.

And either a really big liar or an imbecile.

A twinge of fear? I have more fear that a giant meteor will strike and wipe out the earth.

And just for giggles let's see some of your PA polls. I could use a good laugh.

[jharp]

"but then if you called my house and asked me if I like McCain, I'd tell you honestly, NO."

I missed this piece of idiocy you posted.

For being a polling expert do you even read what questions are asked?

Good God, go to school son. Dumb and uneducated is no way to go through life.

[mark l.]

jharp-

i accept that the polls MAY be right, and am well prepared for either eventuality.

you are in the uncomfortable position of believing the polls are infallable.

Will you cry like a baby if obama loses? Considering you emotionally charged posts, the answer is a forgone conclusion.

The polls do not measure the population as a whole...

just the segment of people willing to participate in tracking polls OR answer the phone even when they don't recognize the number on caller ID. The polling oversamples 'extroverts' and undersamples introverts.

What will be your excuses, after you dry your eyes, if obama loses?
sounds like you are ill preapred for the possibility.

[mark l.]

there is a small matter of the weekly reader poll, due out on the same day of obama's infomericial,10/29,
it has predicted the actual president in EVERY election since 1956.

margin for bush was huge, not like the eventual results of 04, so I wouldn't use it as guage...

but given its uncanny accuracy, I'd like to hear from the kids. If obama wins it, I can't deny that there will be a sudden sinking feeling. I'll let you know how it turns out, either way.

I have no regrets about having already voted.

[mark l.]

"Dumb and uneducated is no way to go through life."

What name do you go by on the mensa chatboards? We could continue the discussion about my intellect or education in a more private forum.

[Lala]

John McCain will fix it

McCain Plans Chain of Obama Recovery Centers
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace ·

(2008-10-26) — John McCain reportedly has already laid plans to heal the nation’s political wounds, and to offer new hope to countless journalists and other liberals whose faith will have been shattered by the defeat of Barack Obama at the polls on November 4.

According to an unnamed campaign insider, Sen. McCain’s “compassion for the multitudes who will suddenly be like sheep without a shepherd” has resulted in detailed plans for…

* a nationwide chain of in-patient Obama recovery centers,
* community-based 12-step groups, and
* fast-track FDA approval for a post-Obama patch (a wearable mix of sugar, Koolaid and a mild steroid) designed to “help the user through the rough spots after losing his hope for change.”

A top Democrat strategist today acknowledged that colleagues have discussed privately what they would do in the “doomsday scenario” of an Obama loss, but they’ve dealt with the threat by “simply putting it out of our minds and focusing on the transition plan for his ascension to the White House. Anything Barack can conceive, we can believe. Yes, we can.”

The strategist added that transition planning has been much easier this year because “most of the research has been done, and we’re just revising and synthesizing the transition plans we have on file for Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry. In other words, we already know how long the drapes need to be.”

[mark l.]

seriously jharp-

what will be your rationale if mccain wins?

considering you have failed to ponder that outcome, I wouldn't question anyone else's intellect.

Since you have no rationale thus far, and given your agitation, you strike me as a 'cry baby'.

Here's some sage wisdom from bob marley,

"nobama, no cry."

[Lala]

Oh, no wonder Obama drew such a big crowd - it was a Santana concert -

Carlos Santana’s Free Concert Drew Larger Crowd Than McCain’s Rally

Albuquerque Obama “crowd” was a Santana Concert!

Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2008 11:58:30 AM by DesertRhino Free Republic

I happened to be near the McCain and Obama (Peace be upon him) events yesterday in Albuquerque NM. McCain’s was a normal campaign event, one of his two on opposite ends of the state that day.

The Event in Mesilla NM yesterday was his main event. Albuquerque was basically an impromptu stop halfway between Durango Colorado and Mesilla NM. Obama Hussein (Peace be upon him) had a big event last night in Albuquerque too. I woke up today to breathless national stories that McCain and Obama (Peace be upon him) had competing events in Albuquerque, and that Obama’s (Peace be upon him) crowd was 45,000 while McCain’s was about 1,500.

Well,,I thought you guys might like the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey says. Obama’s (Peace be upon him)event was held in the center of the University village. And the press keeps forgetting one little detail, it was a free concert featuring Carlos Santana. For my freeper friends across the country, he’s still a massive celebrity out here with the Latino community. The crowd thinned *quickly* after the show. They werent waiting around for “the one”.

Obama (Peace be upon him) jumps on the stage at the end of a free concert,, and acts like he drew the crowd. Just thought you guys needed to know. He is all smoke and mirrors. NM Hispanic Christians wont let you down, mark my words.

NM will break for McCain, just watch.

[jharp]

"you are in the uncomfortable position of believing the polls are infallable."

Again, you are wrong. Polls can and do change daily. It's just that never in the our history have they changed enough to overcome the drubbing McCain is receiving.

"Will you cry like a baby if obama loses?"

No.

"The polls do not measure the population as a whole..."

The polls use a small sample to project the population as a whole. And they are usually extraordinarily accurate, though not always.

"just the segment of people willing to participate in tracking polls OR answer the phone even when they don't recognize the number on caller ID. The polling oversamples 'extroverts' and undersamples introverts."

There is a class you ought to enroll in called statistics 101. It'll teach you all you need to know about polls to keep you from appearing to be an imbecile.

"What will be your excuses, after you dry your eyes, if obama loses?"

Same as it was when we re elected George Bush. How could 59 million people be so friggin stupid?

[jharp]

NM will break for McCain, just watch.

Posted by: Lala | Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 05:28 PM

Are you trying to out stupid mark l?

Obama has a ten point lead in NM. It's bluer than Pennsylvania.

Intrade has New Mexico 88% to 12%.

Go get some help for yourself. You're hallucinating.

[tally]

Watching Obama in Denver - he just told people to vote EARLY. From the Denver Government Website:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Early Voting Dates for General Election
Monday, October 20 - Saturday, October 25
Monday, October 27 - Friday, October 31

(NEW) Sunday, Oct. 26, 11 a.m.-4 p.m., at the Webb bldg and Elections Division locations only (NEW)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Webb Bldg is just over 100 feet from today's Obama Rally. He might as well said - step across the street and vote for me.

[mark l.]

"Same as it was when we re elected George Bush. How could 59 million people be so friggin stupid?"

jharp-kerry had the 59 million. bush had 62 million. To answer you question on their stupidity, the 59 million,:

I'd blame the education system and unfounded beliefs.

lala-
zogby has NM 46.1(o)-45.5(mc)...oct 21.

but I think the election will be decided within the states east of the mississippi.

NH, VA, OH, PA... I'm inclined to believe if either candidate take 3 of the four, I can go to bed early.

[jharp]

A Center for Rural Strategies poll released last week found Democrat Barack Obama leads McCain 46 percent to 45 percent among rural voters in 13 battleground states, including Iowa.

That's amazing. Ordinarily, a Republican presidential candidate should expect to carry the voters from small towns, farms and ranches by double-digit margins. In 2004, these rural battleground areas went for George W. Bush by 15 percentage points....

[jharp]

lala,

Rasmussen has NM 55 Obama 42 McCain

I'm inclined to believe that McCain loses before it gets there.

[jharp]

Something else to ponder in wingnuttia.

"The Hill reports that Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) would like to be appointed to fill the vacancy that would be left behind if Barack Obama moves into the White House"

Wouldn't that just be the topper of all toppers!

Jesse Jackson, Jr. a United States Senator!

Go blue! Stomp them! Don't just beat them. Bury them so far that they don't know what hit em.

It'll be decades for the GOP to recover from what George Bush has unleashed.

[mark l.]

"Syria: US choppers attack village near Iraq border"

dems best remain mum on this one.

I know nancy pelosi had visited Syria, and stated 'the road to peace leads thru damascus', (two weeks before the Israeli's bombed their nuclear facility) but the last thing they want is to bring up foriegn policy issues...

will they resist putting their foot in their mouth?

joe biden: this was a blatant attempt to stir up an october surprise.
commander on the ground: this villiage was the clearing point for foreign fighters killing our troops.

I'm sure obama will exceed his georgian performance, it couldn't possibly have been worse.

[jharp]

"Syria: US choppers attack village near Iraq border"

dems best remain mum on this one.

Oh no. Quite the contrary.

This will magnify McCain's desire to start war with Iran.

And jsut in case you didn't hear, mark l. (wrong about everything), war ain't selling very well these days.

[mark l.]

question for press to ask obama:

do you agree with the decison to 'expand' the Iraq war into Syria?

if he dares answer, yes, followup:

would you be willing to expand into Iran, if it were shown that the same conditions exist there?

there'd be more stuttering than a crack house in philly.

[Todd]

"Oh, no wonder Obama drew such a big crowd - it was a Santana concert -"

There was no Santana concert in St. Louis last weekend that drew 100,000 people to an Obama rally or in Kansas City the same day that drew 75,000 people to that Obama rally.

John McCain's rallies draw like 2000-4000 people.

But, you go on and keep living in denial, Lala.

[jaime]

"Albuquerque Obama “crowd” was a Santana Concert!"

There was no Santana concert for this: http://www.ksby.com/Global/story.asp?S=9240840

[mark l.]

"war ain't selling very well these days"

funny coming from a supporter of a candidate who's 'focusing like a laser' on "class war".

[BobinStamford]

"there'd be more stuttering than a crack house in philly"

Redneck statisticians shouldn't talk about stuttering when they support a stammering fool like George Bush. Where is that simpleton these days anyway? Vacationing? Hiding somewhere? Drinking? Who knows. Who cares.

The party is over, patriots. White House, Senate, House. The real surge begins in a week.

[mark l.]

"Obama's lead among voters making less than $35,000 per year remains substantial at a little over 70 percent. But McCain, who had previously scored well only with the highest income brackets, now holds slight leads among voters in all income groups starting at $35,000 and above."

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49J0LF20081026

the sword of class warfare has two edges, and obama is swinging away in a crowd.

35k...you want a real funny number from the 04 demographics?

kerry won the group up to 50k. (i'll help you save some breathe...polls, particularly zogby ones, mean very little.)

[jharp]

Hey mark l,

If you are such a believer in Zogby I highly recommend www.intrade.com where a wager of $1 dollar on McCain wins you $9 dollars.

And what ever happened to those PA polls you were touting? Ain't looking to good, huh? You are a fraud.

[mark l.]

"Redneck statisticians shouldn't talk about stuttering when they support a stammering fool like George Bush."

ironic in that people tend for the candidate most like them.

btw-by 'support', you mean 'elected twice'?

yes, yes barack obama is nothing like george bush or john mccain, or john kerry...
but why is someone who voted for bush going to decide that they would rather go with the most liberal inexperineced democrat in election hx?

what is the premise that seals the deal with these voters?
this problem isn't just occurring among 04 bush voters, but clinton supporters as well. Yes they want obama to beat a republican, but do they want to go out an vote for the guy and bear the blame for any 'testing of his mettle' that comes our way?

explain why the vote will be any different from bush's two successful runs.

[jharp]

explain why the vote will be any different from bush's two successful runs.

Posted by: mark l. | Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 08:36 PM

The easy answer is George Bush's policies have ruined our economy.

And John McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.

[Spartan112]

Why on earth is anyone considering NH a battleground state? Polls today put NH in O's pocket with a 14pt lead.

[Todd]

HAHA...the Anchorage Daily News endorses Obama....

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/567867.html

Obama for president

Palin's rise captivates us but nation needs a steady hand

Published: October 25th, 2008 07:37 PM
Last Modified: October 25th, 2008 08:10 PM

Alaska enters its 50th-anniversary year in the glow of an improbable and highly memorable event: the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate. For the first time ever, an Alaskan is making a serious bid for national office, and in doing so she brings broad attention and recognition not only to herself, but also to the state she leads.

Story tools

Comments (879)

Recommend (401)

E-mail a friend

Print

Digg this

Seed Newsvine

Send link via AIM

Add to My Yahoo!

Yahoo! Buzz

Font size : A | A | A

Alaska's founders were optimistic people, but even the most farsighted might have been stretched to imagine this scenario. No matter the outcome in November, this election will mark a signal moment in the history of the 49th state. Many Alaskans are proud to see their governor, and their state, so prominent on the national stage.

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

ADVERTISEMENT
Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.

Sen. Obama warned regulators and the nation 19 months ago that the subprime lending crisis was a disaster in the making. Sen. McCain backed tighter rules for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but didn't do much to advance that legislation. Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it. It is easy to look at Sen. Obama and see a return to the smart, bipartisan economic policies of the last Democratic administration in Washington, which left the country with the momentum of growth and a budget surplus that President George Bush has squandered.

On the most important issue of the day, Sen. Obama is a clear choice.

Sen. McCain describes himself as a maverick, by which he seems to mean that he spent 25 years trying unsuccessfully to persuade his own party to follow his bipartisan, centrist lead. Sadly, maverick John McCain didn't show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years.

It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington. You need look no further than the guilt-by-association lies and sound-bite distortions of the degenerating McCain campaign to see how readily he embraces the divisive, fear-mongering tactics of Karl Rove. And while Sen. McCain points to the fragile success of the troop surge in stabilizing conditions in Iraq, it is also plain that he was fundamentally wrong about the more crucial early decisions. Contrary to his assurances, we were not greeted as liberators; it was not a short, easy war; and Americans -- not Iraqi oil -- have had to pay for it. It was Sen. Obama who more clearly saw the danger ahead.

The unqualified endorsement of Sen. Obama by a seasoned, respected soldier and diplomat like Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican icon, should reassure all Americans that the Democratic candidate will pass muster as commander in chief.

On a matter of parochial interest, Sen. Obama opposes the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but so does Sen. McCain. We think both are wrong, and hope a President Obama can be convinced to support environmentally responsible development of that resource.

Gov. Palin has shown the country why she has been so successful in her young political career. Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake. She has made it clear she's a force to be reckoned with, and you can be sure politicians and political professionals across the country have taken note. Her future, in Alaska and on the national stage, seems certain to be played out in the limelight.

Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

[mary]

hahahhahah money buys anything. lol

[mary]

jharp, ahsn't BO repeatedly said he wants to invade Pakistan? That always makes me think he is a closet war hawk.

Generally, when a man has been to war, he tries everything he can to avoid war and solve things peacefully and amicably.

[Lala]

The Anchorage paper always endorses Democrats.

[mark l.]

"I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

"Mark my words," Biden told donors at a Seattle fund-raiser Sunday night.

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.

"Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

"And he's going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right."

This isn't mccain talking about palin,
its biden, talking about barack.