Cheer up: new poll shows Obama lead

It's been kind of a dispiriting week for progressives, having to watch the polls move in McCain's direction. But here's some good news: a new Daily Kos-sponsored tracking poll that has Obama ahead 47% to 45%.

Indeed, it feels like the post convention McCain momentum is running down. After all, you can only lie for so long until the bad karma catches up. And the non-critical national media are starting to wake up, thankfully.

It'll be interesting to see how Sarah Palin performs when she isn't simply reading her stump speech over and over.

Pretty amazing, really. Here's this supposed model of feminist independence standing next to McCain like a robot, reciting what she's been told to say, refusing to answer questions (until tonight, when ABC has an interview with her).

This is showing American voters how ill-prepared she is. McCain claims she's ready to take over as president, but his campaign doesn't think she's even ready for a press conference.

The "internal" numbers in the Daily Kos poll are encouraging. Take a look. Obama is leading McCain by four to eighteen points in every part of the country but the south. Good luck on winning a national election with that sort of support.

Women favor Obama by nine points. And I suspect that gap will only grow as they learn about McCain's and Palin's anti-choice positions.

Bottom line: the sky isn't falling, Obama supporters. He and Biden are poised for a bounce-back.

Comments

[Sylvia Kirkwood]

Thanks! I needed some positive words this afternoon!

[condor]

For those of you who missed it, there is supposed to be a repeat of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Obama this Sunday, 9-14, on Fox at 8pm. The time may vary according to time zone.

This is a chance to see Obama in a "hard" venue and not the fluffy ones like "The View", "Letterman", and "Ellen".

[Rain]

I hope someone gets McCain in a hard venue. He is getting such a soft ride even now from the press. He needs to be confronted by his choices, the lies he's let go by and now his he'd be against the Bush plans except he was for them all. If he's so much against Bush, why does he have Rove running his campaign and boy can you see Rove's fingerprints all over it. The question is can Americans be fooled again? You know the old saying fool me once and it's your fault. Fool me twice and it's mine. We shall see.

I think obama has all along been counting on the electoral college and not popular vote, not that he won't want to win both but as Bush showed us in 2000, you can lose the popular and win the presidency. That might should be changed but for now it's how it works. Also Obama didn't peak early with the primaries. I do think they know what they're doing. They have so far.

The big thing is holding McCain to some hard interviews where he can't just 'my friend' it and has to really answer where he'd differ from say Bush. We know why he'd want to say he differs but where does he actually?

[HarryVanderpool]

Just to mix things up a bit:
I do not know one single person that is planning on wasting their vote on Obama.
Relitives, firends, neighbors, aquaintances, committee members ....
Not a one plan on pulling that lever in the booth and hearing a flushing sound.
I'm sure that the wide eyed kids in college and the condo dwellers may consider such a radical vote; I just have not heard any one express it yet.
But then to be fair, I cannot imagine anyone I know standing in a crowd with their arms outstregthed, tears running down their faces screaming, Obama, Obama, or McCain, McCain!!
In fact, I am sure that Brian would not want to be sucked into such weak followerism.
But then I always have to remember:
Two elections in a row Americans voted for the wrong candidate.
And not only the wrong one, but one that turned out to me the worst president in the history of the United States.
Maybe we will vote in EVEN A WORSE one, in Obama!
Naw!!!! No way!

[Rain]

We could get a worse one and at a time where our economic situation is teetering on the edge of disaster for all who have investments or need jobs. I think we are a very divided people because among my family and friends that live closest (Oregon) almost all are voting Obama (and working for his election or donating so not the middle group swaying this way or that), but I have internet friends who live in other states, some (good people) even still support Bush policies and will be voting McCain. One of my women friends was very impressed by Palin but the rest would not want to see her one heartbeat away from the presidency.

I personally think it'll be a knuckle biter election night and may come down to one state and its electoral votes again. What I really hope is we don't have ethical questions again about that state as we did with Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. We should have an election system that is incorruptible (even if we as people make a mistake) but we still do not. What I wonder is why not? This is the responsibility of states, and I am proud that Oregon went to vote by mail and its current system (even though I voted against that change) because of the high turnout of those who vote. I think we have a system that is as accurate as any can be.

[Dan]

Thank God it was a DailyKos poll...and not some biased piece of crap done by, oh...I don't know...Karl Rove!

(For the delusional and/or drug-addled, the above remark was sarcasm to point out that tracking polls published by people who push an agenda are specious at best. If Karl Rove published a poll that says McCain was ahead, Brian and his Merry Pranksters would howl about the inherent bias and completely discount it...as they probably should. Luckily, Rove doesn't have to fake a poll showing McCain ahead...since every major pollster has alread proved it.)

Put down the bong, Brian. If DailyKos only has Obama up by 2 points...you guys are in an absolute world of hurt. Like bringing a box of band-aids to an amputation.

[condor]

Rain said: "..but I have internet friends who live in other states, some (good people) even still support Bush policies and will be voting McCain."

--Isn't it amazing. Some who support Bush and vote McCain are actually good people. How can it be?

[Dan]

I reject your premise entirely, Condor. I have been told over and over again that good people simply CANNOT vote for Bush, McCain or any other Republican. Children of Light only support the morally and intellectually superior Democrats...or independents, if a Democrat is unavailable...or an enviornmentally-conscious minor party if said Child of Light is particularly self-righteous and needs to feel good about themselves.

Repeat after me.

Democrat....GOOD.

Republican....BAD.

Continue until the pains of logical thought subside.

[Brian]

Dan, your ignorance shows. Obviously you didn't even read the Daily Kos post, which I provided several links to. It starts with:

"The new Daily Kos tracking poll is conducted by the experienced and professional pollsters at Research 2000, and like all media polls, are not influenced by the sponsor. It's not a liberal poll or a conservative poll, it's a poll – a snapshot over a three-day period."

Condor, like Rain said, we're still waiting for McCain to appear on Keith Olbermann's show. What's the matter? Can't this supposedly brave warrior face up to a skeptical questioner, just like Obama had the balls to do with O'Reilly?

McCain isn't who he claims to be. He has forsaken his honor, being reduced to spouting Karl Rove'ian lies, after he promised to run an honorable campaign. Sad to see someone sink so low, so fast.

[Dan]

Yes, yes Brian. Any disclaimer automatically eliminates any bias in the questions, the analysis, the pollsters, and the respondent pool. You are new at this, so we should probably cut you some slack. But the mistake that so many liberals tend to make...just because you disagree doesn't make me ignorant.

[Brian]

Dan, my point is that Fox News commissions polls. So does CNN. So does Daily Kos. You called into question the Daily Kos poll objectivity. Are you also challenging these other polls?

Why would someone pay good money for an inaccurate poll? I have personal experience with survey research. Polls are expensive. You do them to get at the truth, not what you want to believe.

It just bothers me when people say stuff that isn't true. I'm not saying you and other commenters are as fond of falsehoods as McCain and Palin are, but as Obama said recently...

Enough. Enough. Enough. The lies have to stop. And I'm pleased to do what I can to shed light on them.

[Dan]

Of course people pay money for biased polls, you dolt! :) And of course I question CNN, Gallup, Zogby, Rassmussen and all the others.

Then they can take the results and go to a funding source and ask for more money because they are "gaining ground," or because a certain message is moving voters...or to motivate and encourage their grassroots, like Kos (and how you posted the "Don't Despair" message after reading it). You can get a poll to say anything you want depending on who and what you ask. You ALWAYS look at the crosstabs.

Sometimes, people poll for the truth, especially when they are formulating message and prioritizing funds. But when the truth comes back and it isn't the result you want...well, that gets locked away. And don't spin me any hippie bullshit about how only change-fearing Republicans do that.

[Rain]

Just a thought, Brian, but if it was my blog and someone called me a dolt, they'd find their whole comment erased. In my house, they'd be asked to leave-- unless they were kidding in which case they might be called one back. Right now the blog world is full of really nasty people-- on both sides and they don't deserve attention.

Commenting in blogs is a privilege, not a right. Let Dan get his own blog if he wants to be insulting. Anybody who has read you for awhile knows you are no dolt. If he gets his own, he can draw in his own readers, not use your forum. You mostly get polite people here, like Condor, Idler and Harry who disagree but do so thoughtfully and without insulting you or your other readers.

Dan didn't offend me though because I quit reading what he said with the word dolt; so not sure what he gains with it. Of course, it's your blog, and you can do as you please :)

[Brian]

Rain, I figure that commenters like Dan make my point for me -- through their irrational and insulting use of language. They're a reflection of the neo-con fantasy.

Speak falsehoods often and loud enough, and they are treated as reality. I'm confident that the American people have had enough of this bullshit.

So, considering the source, I consider it a compliment of sorts to be called a "dolt" by someone like Dan. Since the truth is opposite to the neo-con worldview, this must mean that I'm a marvelously well-informed guy.

Thank you, Dan!

[Harry Vanderpool]

What is a Dolt anyway?
Is one automaticly a Dolt, if they don't know the definition?
Well, at least I'm in good company!
;-)

[Dan]

Happy to help out, Brian. I guess you Obama supporters need to grasp at whatever straws you can find. I just love how the liberal sense of tolerance only extends to those opinions that fit their Procrustean world view. Rain, I couldn't care less if a blog erases my comments. Brian has been called far worse than a dolt. Unlike BlueOregon, Brian tends not to censor comments, lest real alternative viewpoints are expressed. For that, I commend him. Although some of the posts I've read here are so vile in their content that he has done little to repudiate them...especially when they support his viewpoint. Those rumors about Palin were really beneath anyone that values any type of political discourse.

And seriously, are you really that myopic that you think anything a NeoCon says is the opposite of truth? I'm not saying either side has a monopoly on good ideas or "the truth", but statements like that don't exactly give credibility to your viewpoints.

[condor]

Man, it's clear from this blog lately why politics is a taboo topic in many social situations. If this was a dinner party, we'd all have bloody noses.

I think it's just very frustrating for people to encounter those who disagree with what seems obviously true to them and their core beliefs, so they feel compelled to lash out.

There. I've finally said something everyone can agree with.

Now to piss off the Obamists. Here's another poll that says McCain has the lead:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_ap_poll

Take your pick. I don't trust any of the polls.

[twocanpete]

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
Now that the media has done the obligatory lovefest with Sarah-Barrcuda they are about to begin the tear down. Those wolves in the McCain commercials are going to start to look real familar to Ms.Palin as the press begins to nip, then bite, then rip to shred every white lie that passes her lips.

[Roger]

I've been thinking about all this lipstick stuff. I have come to the conclusion,

This is a Conspiracy created by the lipstick manufacturers. This conspiracy has two agendas.

First: "Lipstick on a Pig"
Clearly, this agenda was devised to increase gross profits of current lipstick sales, here in the United States of America.
One can easily see this.

Second: "Lipstick on a Barracuda"
Clearly, this new and upcoming agenda is being formulated to promote a new line of lipsticks. Here in our country(USA) and abroad. Something tells me that this new line will be much more expensive, than the current. Thus, taking even more money out of the pockets of hard working Americans.

Yours truely,
Roger

[kate]

haha. you trust the Daily Kos (far-left loons) polls. wow, when McCain wins the GE, you guys will need therapy. I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter who will vote Palin. check any other polls. the momentum is on the side of McCain. Wake up.

[Rain]

Kate, I have wondered how the Hillary supporters could switch to Palin and maybe you have the answer. It wasn't issues that made you support Hillary obviously, so was it just a vagina?

[kate]

Nope. But from the way you frame your question, its obvious that you'd never understand. You've already pre-judged us. Too bad. We'll see you at the GE. no worries, after the GE, we'll be back to the democratic fold again. and we'll talk about 2012. :-)

[Rain]

I still would like to know how anybody who supports Hillary could want Palin to win. Do you supporters of Palin realize that if she is veep now, she is likely to run for prez in 2012 and win? The argument that she is not experienced will be done. The woman is very charming, personable, has a lot of spunk and young. Her victory in '08 will limit Hillary's options and make it very unlikely she will ever be president.

To me women should vote on the issues and there are many that matter. If someone is pro-life for instance, it makes sense that they'd support Palin but how did they support Hillary?

And we have a saying in the country, don't count your chickens before they are hatched. This election ain't over just yet.

[Rain]

One more point, there is an assumption that if Obama wins, Hillary cannot run in '12. That would only be true if he succeeds. If he fails as president, many have taken on the sitting president and some have won. This country wants change and he better deliver or he is not guaranteed even my vote in '12.

What will be true though, in these next 4 years, McCain or Palin will have appointed a new supreme court judge. We have several old and some not well. With one more in the conservative column, to vote along with Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia, things like dictatorial presidency, loss of habeas corpus, continued torturing and running secret prisons (McCain was against torture before he has backed off on it now and who knows where he will stand if he gets in), and abortion as a federal right, will be impossible to change for years to come. If someone is pro life, they would relish that. Basically it will throw abortion rights to the states where it will depend on where you live whether a woman has a choice. Those kind of changes won't be overridden quickly if at all.

[condor]

Rain wrote: "..continued torturing and running secret prisons (McCain was against torture before he has backed off on it now and who knows where he will stand if he gets in.."

--I like torture. That is, sometimes it's necessary. Let's say I have a wife and kids who are locked up in a secret room with a remote detonator set to explode a bomb in the room at a cetain time if I don't give a guy 10 million dollars (He doesn't know I could give him 50 because he couldn't access information on my offshore accounts). Be that as it may, I and a couple of rough buddies have located the twisted fucker and have placed him in our own secret room. We are well-equipped with tools and chemicals known to inflict, with proper use, extreme unrelenting agony. Upon application of the aforesaid equipment we have convinced the guy that devulging the location of the detonator and secret room is his shortcut to relief. (Even McCain gave in to his captors) We locate and disarm the detonator and my wife and kids are safe. Somehow, I don't feel the least recrimination about giving the bad guy an impromptu root canal to accomplish this.

Now this isn't a matter of policy with me. I don't have a sign on my door that says "Trespassers will be tortured". I mean, I don't as a rule apply extreme measures on someone with whom I have a disagreement. I might write them a letter expressing my grievance, take them to court or something like that. Perhaps I can get together with the neighbors and politely suggest that the Smiths take steps to stop their obnoxious dog from barking at 3 AM. However, I am going to do whatever it takes to save my wife and kids. To hell with the courts. To hell with the law, and to hell with anybody who disagrees with me on the basis of their standards of morality. I'm gonna do what I gotta do.

Ultimately, there are no rules. The baddest dog wins. That's the way it is in nature and in human affairs.

[Rain]

except torture doesn't work, condor. McCain said it himself-- you will say anything under torture. The hypotheticals are not who get tortured. It's people who fell into the net often by mistake. Many in Gitmo to begin with were sent home because that was found out that they were just soldiers or those who some warlord had a grievance against.

Bush's people tortured people to say Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and where they were and it was all lies-- just to get it to stop. It does not work like on tv shows.

In certain situations, anybody would probably agree to torturing someone but what you are describing isn't how the Bush people did it. It's the argument I have heard for years but it didn't prevent anything.

What did the North Vietnamese gain from torturing McCain except sadistic satisfaction and he has faced a lifetime of disability because of it. The reason torture was outlawed by the Geneva conventions was for the protection of each country's own men. Torture still happens but most likely when someone gets some kind of sadistic pleasure from it-- not because it ever works. We used to think that our nation was better than that. The world used to think that.

[condor]

Rain,

It isn't about politics.

If you don't "get" what I said about torture, there is nothing else I can say.

The second and third paragraphs are more to the point than the first.

[kate]

rain, in a way, I agree with you. Obama could still win. Thats true. But if he doesn't, Hillary will be the democratic nominee in 2012. If you can't see that, you're overly partisan, and refuse to see reality. And yes, she will win against Palin (however good she is).

I am firmly pro-choice, but I will not argue with you on why I dont support Obama. And we are not one issue voters. Obamacrats (notice I dont say democrats) holding RvW over our heads reminds me of repugs. Politics of fear. Wont work. :-)

[Rain]

Politics of fear do work obviously.

I would have voted for Hillary had she won the nomination even though I began supporting Obama in December '07. There was a brief time where I said I could not based on her character but got a handle on it and realized the issues mattered most. If people care about what their candidates stand for, then their vote will be on what is best for the nation as they see it. Revenge doesn't buy much happiness in personal life and even less in politics but Rove is counting on it working just enough.

Personally, I think Palin, in '12 would beat Hillary (if Hillary even gets the nomination). It takes more than women voting for her and of that 18 million votes she got, some (and who knows how many) were Republicans in operation chaos so dubbed by Rush). Hillary has problems with a lot of voters because of Bill. I had people in my own blog who said they would not have voted for Obama if she had even been on his ticket. She lost others because of how she ran that campaign-- think lousy with money and administration. It made people wonder how she'd run the country.

She would have had my vote (because of the issues) but people who vote like you, based on emotion, which might be the majority in this country, in '12, they'll go for the younger, better looking, nicer appearing person, who knows how to kill a moose. Sad but it's how it is. Politics right now is more American Idol than issues. It's about gotchas and undecideds often vote on the last slick ad.

The supreme court is not about fear talk. It's reality of understanding how the government works. The federal right to abortion was given by the court and can be taken away. It's all in how each court interprets the Constitution. I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal.We are one vote away from a neo-con, conservative court who isn't really conservative but something else. Now one of those four existing right wing judges could change their direction someday. That has happened before to courts but they vote right wing in lock step right now. People need to be informed how government works but if issues don't matter, neither does that.

Obama may lose and McCain may win. Given what we can see about his past, her past, how they operate, our country will lose. I can't even imagine getting satisfaction from seeing a guy in there who has a hot temper and the power to push buttons, a guy who has said he'd like to go back to a draft, who sounded like he'd have jumped into war with Russia over Georgia. But you know if you like that idea, what can I say? A lot here do.

To be honest, I can't say exactly what McCain will do once he gets in, because I have no idea. He's had many stands on many things and while he says no taxes, he wants to tax job health benefits from the companies and said nothing is off the table for solving SS problems.

As for Hillary beating Palin in'12. That's wishful thinking. I saw Palin in interview clips and she will be formidable even now. She's good at swaying with the winds to get her positions to sound good (sound like anybody we know?). Hillary will be 4 years older and looking even tireder. When the country is voting on American Idol standards, it's not hard to see who will win. I would obviously vote for Hillary as revenge voting has no appeal for me at all. I want things done that I consider the right ones in the government and choose the candidate closest to what I want. Unless the Republican party changes its whole political stance, that would have to be Hillary. But I am rarely in the majority for winning the candidate I choose. Bush won twice; so that kind of personality has a lot of appeal and Palin is Bush!

This is my last post here on this topic as it's obvious you have made up your mind that revenge is sweet. I wonder if you'll feel that way after McCain gets in... As for me, I'll be hoping we get through 4 years of him and have someone running the next time who can then clean up 12 years of disasters... and if Palin wins in '12, someone in 20 years who can fix it all... if I am alive in 20 years lol

[kate]

rain, thank you for the explanation on why you are voting for the Obama. Yes, we do have different points of view and I disagree with almost everything you said. But its glad to know your thought process. Well, each of us owns our vote, and we both have made up our minds.

You made 3 assumptions which are just plain wrong. Although you eloquently describe the reasons you are voting for Obama, you made 3 assumptions which are really not true.

1. You assume that I vote on emotion, which is wrong.

2. You assume that Palin is Bush. That too is wrong.

3. You assume that I want sweet revenge. Not true again.

But yes, the rest of your points are well taken. We just have different points of view. So thank you for your explanations.

[condor]

Rain wrote: "Personally, I think Palin, in '12 would beat Hilary"

--We barely know this woman who has been on the scene for a couple of weeks and you've got her beating Hillary in 2012? For a democrat, you're giving Palin an awful lot of credit. Don't you think we should give her at least another week to prove herself? I mean, like you say, all we know is that she can shoot a moose.

Rain said: "I can't even imagine getting satisfaction from seeing a guy in there who has a hot temper and the power to push buttons,.."

--I can see it now, this red-faced tyrant waving his stiff little arms, shouting epithets at his subordinates when a report about Iran comes across his desk.."Goddam bastards! Nuke 'em right now!"

"But sir, begging your pardon, don't you think you should run this by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress?"

"Screw them! I want Iran blown off the face of the earth right now! I'm pissed off and I'm not going to take it any more! Get to it or you're fired and I'll do it myself!"

[Rain]

I would have never believed Bush could get away with what he has, Condor, and look at how it's gone down; so who knows.

In the case of Palin, I personally think, she's going to lose this go round, and it's gonna be President Obama come January; but the main argument many have against her right now is lack of experience (for me it is also her character and stand on issues).

If mcCain dies in office, but not too soon, she can run for two more terms. Now possibly, the stuff she did, while mayor and governor which is being vetted (more than what we can say for how McCain vetted), will change the dynamics. People have had no clue how she ran the mayor's office or the governorship and as that comes out, it might make a difference in her popularity. Either way, she'll be back in '12.

I just don't think anybody should vote for McCain/Palin with the idea it gives Hillary a ride into '12. Hillary thought she had one this time and look what happened. What everybody should do is look at McCain, his health, his stands (when you can figure out which ones he means), look at what Obama says he'll do, his record, and vote the best for this country-- as each believes it to be and hopefully keeping that old song's verses in their minds-- My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty. This country rises or falls by having informed voters who, disagree or agree, vote what they believe will make this nation strongest. If we all only thought of our own selfish best, we'll sink and right now (read Greenspan today) it looks like we are sinking fast. I don't envy the next president for the problems they will face if they really try to deal with them. We are in an economic mess and it's going to take real work and some sacrifice (there's that word again) to get ourselves out of it. Sacrifice is something this generation of Americans seems to think belongs to somebody else.

I should add.. back up there a ways, funny, Roger :) Chuckled twice on that

[kate]

wow, how convenient. They say Palin doesn't have experience but look at Obama, he is worse. Ofcourse they'll try and argue, but that is the bottom line. Palin has more experience than Obama. Thats just a fact, which Obamacrats refuse to acknowledge.

Also, looks like ageism is tolerated at this site. Amazing!!! Racism is shunned by one and all,sexism is tolerated, but ageism is just fine. Statements like if McCain dies in office....... sad that obamacrats try and justify this.

[Rain]

A lot of companies force retirement before McCain's age. Why do you suppose they do that? Just being mean or might there be real differences as we get into genuine old age? Being almost 65 myself, I know age changes things. More for some than others.

In terms of whether McCain might die in office, it's his dad's age and his granddad's that one might consider and yes there are improved heart treatments since his dad died at 71 and granddad at 61 (I think on that exact age). To add to it, McCain is also a survivor (4 times) of melanoma. For me though it's also about the way he is acting on the campaign trail. He mixes up things, can't seem to keep straight what he's talking about (which might be how he always was but I don't remember that in 2000). Now it could be lying or maybe he just can't remember and it's early stage Alzheimer.

And this site might not tolerate what I said. That's up to Brian if he feels what i said was unfair. In my own site, since we discuss age freely, it's fine for somebody to talk about someone being old and more at risk of dying at 72 than they were at 44. It's a fact. And with assassinations, it's why picks for their vice president are so important.

As more comes out about Palin, it's not just about her lack of experience, but what kind of leader has she been as mayor or governor. A lot of people don't want to find out and are quite content to vote for McCain no matter what, which is their right. If a person has made up their mind, the issue of whether Palin was a lousy mayor won't matter because fox said she wasn't and fox knows it all :)

And, I am expressing my own opinion here; but just as I am more likely to get cancer or die from a heart attack at 65 than my kids at about 40, McCain is more likely to die in office than someone younger. Check actuary tables. Incidentally, I am not remotely concerned with being politically correct. I try to stick to what is true, not what is popular. McCain is an old man by any standard and that is a factor voters are considering when they look at his veep choice.

I answered Condor here and made a mistake in doing so. I won't be back to this particular subject as it's wasting my time to get into this kind of debate where nobody really cares about what I think. We aren't communicating and that means it'll deteriorate from here. A friend of mine said this kind of discussion is a waste of time and she was probably right.

You are voting as you see best, Kate. I wish you the best with it. It's all any of us can do.

[Roger]

Rain,

Thanks for the laughter. At least one person thought my "Lipstick Conspiracy" was funny. A little comic relief nested within election year politics, can have some value. Thanks again, for being the only one that thinks I have a sense of humor. I think, I need to keep my day job.
Roger

[kate]

rain, yes, you can justify anything. You justify ageism so easy. So would you like it if I picked up racism and showed you a whole lot of statistics regarding that? Or do you prefer sexism instead? What I'm trying to say is that McCain is ready to lead from day one. and Obama isn't. Palin is more experienced than Obama. but ofcourse you'll not agree to it. when he loses, he'll join the likes of Dukakis and Kerry, but imo, Obama is the worst. only then would you understand what I say. wait for wisdom.