Obama pulling Away too far?

Lately, several news stories have focused on polls from various states that would lead to the conclusion that Barack Obama is pulling away from John McCain. Some have even said that they do not believe that McCain will have the momentum to catch up and even some republicans seem pessimistic. However, it is also important to note that John McCain is known for persevering, especially through tough times both militarily and politically. It is also important to keep in mind that polls do not always accurately represent the feelings of the entire electorate and surprises could still be in store.

Another issue that keeps McCain supporters somewhat optimistic is the strides that are being made in Washington to aid in the financial crisis. Many of the horse race polls are being based on who the electorate feels can best lead them through the crisis on Wall Street and hopefully with some progress being made, other issues that are more favorable to McCain will come to the forefront. From several news articles, it seems that McCain and his team have decided that his new strategy will be to aggressively question Obama’s associations and questioning who he really is. These personal attacks might be able to make serious distinctions between the candidates but harsh attacks do not go over well with independent voters and others who want everyone to work together.

The remaining days until the election are sure to be even more intense then they have been thus far. It will be very interesting to see how the candidates do in the remaining two presidential debates and what other kinds of new strategies and tactics they can employ. It seems that the race will be neck and neck until the end.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_next_chapter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738.html

Health Care

In the recent memorandum sent out by Obama and his campaign officials, Obama lists the five distinct pitfalls in McCain’s health plan. He begins by pointing out that the extra $5,000 that McCain promises to families in order to help them pay for their insurance is not actually a benefit at all. Because it is said the average American will have to pay $12,000 for their benefits which puts them in a $7,000 hole. And, the extra $5,000, while it sounds good, is said to come from taxes that will be paid by a tax on insurance benefits, which Obama believes will effectively eliminate healthcare coverage for 20 million people. He also believes that it will make it harder for people to get services from cancer screenings to vaccines, as well as failing to address rising health care costs and the rising group of uninsured Americans.

According to fact checkers inside the article, Obama’s attacks are completely wrong. It is said that most American families will not come out in the hole, but will actually end up saving money, at least for the next 10 years. The plan not only helps save Americans money, but it would increase after tax income over middle class Americans while decreasing after tax income to upper class families. While Obama attacks McCain for wanting to do a marginal change in health care, Obama continues to flaunt Universal Health Care for everyone. Which is a more radical change? I think the answer is obvious. I know mud-slinging continues to be a part of every election, but when Obama is planning on completely redoing every aspect of health care, I don’t believe he needs to be calling McCain’s health care plan radical. Health care has gotten out of control and does need a change somewhere, but I just hope that change doesn’t cause a drastic drop in the health care capabilities of this country. We cannot lose the incentive for our doctors and pharmaceutical companies to keep having breakthroughs. Without breakthroughs we would not have the health capabilities we have today, which has seen a great increase in the average life expectancy.

Facts are Secondary

During the general election stage of a political campaign, candidates are given the opportunity to provide information to the public. But what does the public do when both candidates operate on different realities?

During the vice presidential debate, there were several instances of each candidate, in one way or another, saying, "that's not true," in rebuttal. So who are we supposed to believe? Immediately after watching the debates, I took Joe Biden's word over Palin's on several disagreements simply due to the thorough responses that Senator Biden had to Palin's accusations. But then I looked at factcheck.org.

It is a shame that this service is not widely used by the general public. It is deeply informative and well researched. Not only that, but entirely non-partisan. The factcheck page for the vice presidential debate is an interesting one. The candidates were both incredibly inaccurate and downright false on several of their comments. So how does the general election stage of a campaign legitimize the political system at all if our main source of information is false over 50% of the time? How can we claim the political system works if people vote using the trust built from false information?

To give a few examples, during the veep debates, Palin said outright that millions of small businesses would be affected by tax increases from Obama's administration. That number is only a few hundred thousand. Biden claimed that a comment from Palin about how he would sell clean coal to China was taken out of context. However, the context was fairly close to his actual comment, and there is still some disagreement as to what Biden originally meant. The misinformation available during the debate is startling.

When we think about challenger strategies in regards to offering misinformation, I can see no real correlation. The only one that comes close is attacking the record, but if the attacks are based on falsehood, then what strategies are you really using?

Sorry, are they strategies or tactics?

Who won the debate? Was it Palin or Biden?

Last night, kicked off the first Vice Presidential Debate of this election. In the predebate analysis, it was said that Biden wouldn't try to attack at Palin because he would be considered sexist and if he was too soft he would be patronizing. The question was how should Palin be treated since she struggled to answer questions her interview with Katy Couric? Instead of going after Palin, herself, Biden ended up attacking John McCain instead.

"Two quick polls indicated that Biden fared better in viewers' minds than Palin in the debate."


"A CBS News/Knowledge Networks Poll found that 46 per cent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate thought Biden won, with 21 per cent siding with Palin."

"A CNN poll found respondents judging Biden the winner by a margin of 51 per cent to 36 per cent but calling Palin more likable by 54 per cent to Biden's 36 per cent."

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ixKegsamNPvLHNLTYDS28Mdgs0Ig

It may not look like Palin won the debate through numbers, but it seems like she showed more confidence and didn't struggle to respond to questions.

Palin Not a “Moose in the Headlights” during Vice Presidential Debate

In the aftermath of the Katie Couric interviews, many expected Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin to flounder in the debate. Prior to the interview Palin had been kept away from speaking in public. It appeared as though the interview seemed to exemplify what critics have been saying all along, that Palin lacked experience and knowledge regarding foreign affairs and even domestic policies. She cited that her foreign policy credentials came from Alaska bordering Canada and Russia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg Her inability to even answer basic questions regarding very crucial issues did not uphold the campaign slogan, “A Proven Maverick” that McCain and Palin are trying to create. It only demonstrated further that she may not have been the most experienced choice.

However, in Thursday night’s debate Palin seemed to have changed her image and improved her knowledge of foreign issues. Throughout the debate she demonstrated confidence in her answers, specifically when asked about Afghanistan. Anyone who had seen the Couric interview was cringing as to what her response might have been when asked to discuss the Middle East. Palin proved them, including myself, wrong. She was able to effectively communicate why McCain’s “counterinsurgency strategy” would be successful. Palin was even able to out answer Democratic nominee Joe Biden who has thirty five years experience. With the election a month away, Sarah Palin’s new media image may prove too much for Obama and Biden to overcome.

Defense Secretary Gates to remain if Obama Wins the White House?

On Thursday, one of Barack Obama's senior advisers said that Obama may consider Defense Secretary Robert Gates staying in the Pentagon if Obama were to win the White House. The advisor, Richard Danzig, told reporters that Gates possessed qualities that "an Obama administration would value." Danzig, who's past experiences include serving as the Navy secretary in President Clinton's administration, emphasized Gates's "pragmatic" approach and persistence and "advocacy" in closing Guantanamo Bay for terror suspects, in noting that he felt that he was a good defense secretary. Although, according to Danzig, he has not directly discussed possible candidates with Obama, he adds that "He would be an even better one (defense secretary) in an Obama administration.
I think this could prove valuable, as Gates, if nominated, could bring some valuable experience to the table. However often criticized the Bush administration has been, having people with valuable experience especially in positions as critical as Defense Secretary, I think would prove of immense value to either candidate.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD93IKAB00

McCain pulls out of Michigan

John McCain is pulling out of Michigan, according to two Republicans, with only a month away of Election Day. Instead of campaigning in Michigan, he will send more forces to Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida. This is probably a good move for McCain, since the Republicans saw Michigan as a long shot. But there is always the possibility that he could still pull out a victory in Michigan at the last minute. Was it really worth giving everything up that the McCain campaign has worked so hard for?

Some might say it was well done, so Republicans could focus on states like Ohio and Florida that are on the boarder line this year. The reason for this is due to the last elections results. Bush won Ohio and Florida and the Republicans hope to continue winning these states.

Is Obama’s campaign rejoicing now that the Republicans have left the race in Michigan? I would say yes they are, because this would mean an easier win in Michigan. The batter for the White House is one state at a time, and from the looks of it the Democrats are pulling ahead of this day to day battle.