Tom Moran's right, McCain won't be president.  But he focuses mostly on the candidate and not on the situation. It wouldn't matter who the Republican candidate was; they would at best have a long shot at winning.  McCain is probably the best candidate the GOP could put up (although his campaign is awfully disorganized). The political climate is just so bad for Republicans:  The Democrats are expected to pick up more seats in Congress this year yet again, and might have close to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  The highly unpopular president is a Republican.  The public says it's looking for "change".  And so on. They could have nominated Romney, as Michael wanted.  They could have nominated Huckabee, as the evangelicals wanted.  Wouldn't have made a difference. For that matter, I don't think it would matter if Hillary was the candidate, as Michael wanted (and maybe why he's so anti-Obama) or if Edwards was. Regardless of the outcome, we'd still be looking at a Democrat in the White House in 2009.

Jonathan Wilson If Obama wins, he'll win for one of the following reasons (not saying just one will allow him to win, but a combination): 1) The Democratic climate. Usually when Republicans have two terms, the Democrats chances are higher in that third term to win. 2) Barack Obama is young, male, and African-American giving him an advantage no Caucasian has ever had, and no one can deny this. 3) The media constantly helping Barack Obama, and continuously damaging the McCain campaign. This is very evident, and the fact that average people don't even know McCain's policies nor Barack Obama's policies but yet they support Barack Obama shows the media bias. 4) Agism (discriminating against the elderly like John McCain, just listen to the late night shows) has not been taught in the US education system but Racism has been throughly covered (considering how Civil Rights are covered extensively in American History classes).

Jonathan Wilson Also, I think the American people are more intelligent. I am pretty sure if they were smart enough to not vote for John Kerry, they'll be even smarter when they are faced with a more deceptive candidate than John Kerry: Barack Obama. I think John McCain will surprise everyone. His speeches are excellent, he only sounds tired because of his age, not because he's a tired old man. His speeches are good, his message is good, and his policies are probably the best ever offered by any Republican.

Tom "Also, I think the American people are more intelligent. I am pretty sure if they were smart enough to not vote for John Kerry, they’ll be even smarter when they are faced with a more deceptive candidate than John Kerry: Barack Obama." Not what the polls, political scientists, and presidential historians are saying.  They see an Obama electoral landslide. You and Michael may hate Obama, but he's almost certainly going to be President.

Michael Merritt Jonathan, you may think his policies are the best, but try telling that to some of the base and the far-right.  They all still dislike him, even though some are starting to come around (like Dobson).  Even then, it's probably just a case of finally accepting the inevitable official nomination, and embracing him now to try and stop any attempt of an Obama presidency. I think the problem is a case of uninspiring like Michael says and an unorganized campaign like Tom said.  Look at how many times he's had to shake things up.

Kevin H I don't know if I'd say Obama makes more gaffes, but they certainly do make a comparable amount. Then again, I'm pretty sure I would too. Unfortunately, it's almost a certainty that McCain has had at least some decline in cognitive ability. It happens to everyone when they are old, but there are no signs to me that he's anywhere near being 'infirm'.

Chris I agree with the essential message: a likely Obama victory.  I would also agree with several sentiments voiced above:  Democratic Party momentum, war fatigue, etc.  However, this post is telling for a couple of other reasons: 1) demonstrates a lack of enthusiasm the right has for McCain.  I believe the "boring" and "tired" tags are red herrings.  Remember rightist enthusiasm for Fred Thompson or Romney.  Neither of those we're very "exciting" candidates.  It seems too often the right must be "woo'ed" with strident statements regarding abortion, border security etc.  McCain was a half-hearted woo'er.  Has Obama been a better woo'er of his wing than McCain?  Good question? 2) In spite of the conservative belief in smaller government (to quote another era's Messiah, Reagan "Government is the problem!") I believe they're as vulnerable to hoping for the next Messiah President as the rest of us.  It wasn't until recently that I realized one perverse reason why I like McCain.  I don't need my President to "inspire" me.  I believe it's the inherent nature of the US that is inspiring.  I want a president who can work with folks, get things done and not screw up to much what's already working in America.

RRRocks Perhaps because his supporters are too busy gloating they can’t see how their candidate has delivered a body blow to their entire critique of the Iraq War and in the process moved much closer to John McCain’s position than any of them thought might have been possible even a couple of months ago Ohh and even better........they now want to escalate the war in Afghanistan and go after Bin Laden and the mantra now is kill taliban and Al Quaida soldiers. The antiwar is now fast becoming the WARMONGERS. Perhaps if there is a god then this could be the antichrist, turning even the most ardent antiwar into warmongers.  Bizarre indeed is this man with no history, no record and no principals.

RRRocks If I might offer one explanation for what I believe is the problem with the GOP right now.  Its the inevitable defeat this november.  The defeat in 2006 and the 3 special elections that went to Democrats in Republican districts. The GOP has given up and decided to accept their lumps this november.  Sinisterly eerie like the lefts concept of we aint happy unless the country is miserable.  Right now the GOP/Conservatives are not happy untill the party takes its licken like a man and then regroups under hopefully better times in which they can look at a 3 house democrat majority and finally have something to blame on the other side. Right now EVERYTHING is the GOP and BUSH's fault.  They have just given up and ran out of arguments.

Jonathan Wilson Some people are just being too pessimistic. John McCain is probably the best candidate the GOP has ever had since Reagan. John McCain is flexible and doesn't always listen to his party, that's a positive trait. It shows that he just may not only be the best GOP candidate, but he may after all be one of the best presidents there is, because he has his own set of beliefs like Reagan did, just like Bill Clinton. I respect Bill Clinton's presidency. I was hoping for Al Gore to win the 2000 election, but I'm afraid that I judge politicians based on policy not based on party. You're right, many conservatives fall into this trap of being obsessed with a candidate because he's so "conservative". The reality is, the best presidents are people who can have both Democratic and Republican ideals that don't conflict with each other. A candidate who can think on both sides of the aisles shows that he can be the best president, Ronald Reagan, as much as some will not admit it, was a moderate, he even signed an Abortion bill, which he later said he regretted of course. As such Ronald Reagan was a great president. John McCain seems like one of those great presidents, sure he's older, but in my opinion his age makes him more qualified to be president, I don't want some young inexperienced kid in the white house, I want a senator who's been around Washington a long time and knows when to speak out against his own party.

utsu "they now want to escalate the war in Afghanistan and go after Bin Laden and the mantra now is kill taliban and Al Quaida soldiers." Maybe because they've realized that the war in Afghanistan - unlike the Iraq war - doesn't suck hard. Why the insistence that most on the left has lumped Afghanistan and Iraq together?

RRRocks Why the insistence that most on the left has lumped Afghanistan and Iraq together? I have not lumped them together and in fact I have tried hard to distinguish the two.  The problem is that the left has painted themselves into a corner with the major talking point AGAINST Iraq. That being:  The war is in Afghanistan, not Iraq.  OBL is in Afghanistan, not Iraq.  We should be fighting in Afghanistan, not Iraq.  On and on they went playing up Afghanistan while downplaying and being angry at Iraq.  The consequence is that now that they might actually be in charge they are stuck with a really bad talking point.  Now they feel the need to prove their LIE...........The fact of the matter is that the US and NATO has been in Afghanistan since the beginning and UNLESS      UNLESS Unless we intend to start invading Pakistan then the Taliban and Bin Laden are untouchable from a military standpoint.   Thus the assertion that they want and need to escalate troops into Afghanistan.  NOT to mention I am now hearing noise that if we have to attack Iran.  Lord.....IF we have to attack Iran we need to not be having a battle on 4 fronts..........thats the newest one going around the talk circuits by the left/Democrat talking heads. This is scary stuff.  Obama campaigned as antiwar, got the nomination and flew to the center and is now talking like a NEOCON.  This man is strange and the adulation heaped upon him blankets really bizarre and dicotomous thinking.

redfish McCain will win simply because the Democrats are overconfident, that's my prediction. Tom---for instance, even though on the issue of the economy polls have shown the public prefers Democrats over Republicans; polls have also shown that they prefer McCain over Obama on the economy. Democrats are banking on the fact that voters will identify McCain primarily as a Republican, based on a cliched idea of how American politics works, but its not how it works. People predicted Gore to do a lot better than he did in 2000 because of perceptions of how good the economy was. People are smart enough to separate these issues out. McCain has a record of pushing reforms in Congress, he's also more straightforward than Obama--I think in the end the public will see him a more capable agent of change than Obama. Also, Democrats keep focusing on the 7 in 10 Americans want out of the Iraq war number, while ignoring polls where if people are asked whether its a higher priority to withdraw or to win, only 52% say withdraw, which is nothing like the 7 in 10 figure. Which is why polls also show that the public prefers McCain on Iraq. You also give a great deal of credence to the fact that the public thinks of Obama as exciting and McCain as boring. It's true that a certain segment of the public gets shivers up their legs as Obama speaks, but not everyone. A lot of people think his speeches are repetitive and shallow, although well-spoken. McCain's speeches aren't necessarily bad, he just doesn't speak them well, I guess he never had lessons on that. He also has an interesting back story, and the more he's played as second fiddle to Obama, the more his backstory is enhanced, because he appears like an underdog who is fighting to do the right thing. Democrats feel that Obama will win because they think that everyone feels the same way that they do. They point to misleading poll numbers, without looking at the whole story, to reinforce their feelings. They overvaluate Obama's effectiveness and undervaluate McCain's effectiveness. This will lead to a great deal of overconfidence come the election, and when McCain wins, Democrats will be shocked,  and probably blame voter fraud by Republicans.

utsu "On and on they went playing up Afghanistan while downplaying and being angry at Iraq. " Probably because we've been incredibly right to do so since the beginning. But you are saying that we now have to commit ourselves to Afghanistan, and that this will be difficult? Well, boo-hoo, that's a corner we should be proud we've painted ourselves into. "Obama campaigned as antiwar, got the nomination and flew to the center and is now talking like a NEOCON." He has never used Afghanistan as a lynchpin. He has never stood against continuing fighting in Afghanistan, only Iraq. He has told Pakistan that it needs to get its ass in gear or see the US go in and take the bad guys out. He wants more troops in Afghanistan, and has told Europe that he wants more troops. No other candidate has done all this, and he has done some of this even before he had the candidacy, so he didn't win his nomination by catering to pacifists, only those that dislike the Iraq war. He doesn't use any civilization-saving, nutsy rhetoric either, and has never used fear as a weapon, unlike NEOCONS. His supporters don't go at him for wanting to focus on Afghanistan. You just construct out-of-the-blue untruths or exagerrations because they fit the meme of Obama as some uncommitted schizo.

Chris The latest Rasmussen polls regarding the narrowing gap in certain swing states is really confusing.  What's up with that?  Something's going on that I don't understand and for which we've had little coverage/analysis.

utsu What, you mean Obama eliminating McCain's BIG lead in a sunshine state? Or are there more developments like that?

utsu The sunshine state. It's too hot today.

Chris I'm speaking of this

RRRocks Probably because we’ve been incredibly right to do so since the beginning. But you are saying that we now have to commit ourselves to Afghanistan, and that this will be difficult? Well, boo-hoo, that’s a corner we should be proud we’ve painted ourselves into. And you make my point for me.  The Antiwar has now become the war mongers.

utsu "The Antiwar has now become the war mongers." I've always been anti-Iraq and Pro-Afghanistan/Pakistan/Sudan etc., not to mention that as a Swedish non-democrat I am hardly part of an anti-war phalanx or representative of one. If you want a pacifist that has talked a big but insincere game about Afghanistan in order to strain the Iraq occupation then look elsewhere - I don't satisfy your obsession with that created-on-a-lunch-break theory of yours.

utsu "I’m speaking of this" Oh, bad news. Well, it seems that voters have been attracted by the snake oil that is "More drilling". From the article, it seems that voters there want better energy policy. I guess ruining nature a little more in order to save a small amount of money on gas in the future is what goes for energy policy to people sometimes. Cripes.

Chris " snake oil that is "More drilling"." Less I agree the electorate is interested in "oil", snake or otherwise.  ;-)

Chris that should read:  "Yes, I agree.."

utsu Of course they are interested in oilk, but to drill more is a short-term solution that pays off quite little after a decade or so. McCain is pandering to the common-sensical but erroneous idea that more of the same will set poor little John Q free. But cheaper gas is not something the US can provide on its own.

RRRocks utsu I hope I understand this. You are from sweeden.  You live in sweeden.  Fine. Sweeden is a small country that is suited I suppose to mass transit and other means of traversing your landscape. As for America we are a giant nation.  We have grown up under the guise of personal transportation.  Many of us drive 10-50 miles to work each day.  We did so with the knowledge that gasoline was at a price affordable.  However in the last year the prices have gone to 4-5 dollars per gallon and this nation is sliding into recession.  people are losing jobs, homes, healthcoverage and a means to support themselves because of the price of gasoline. Now a nation that is so dependent upon one thing.  GASOLINE/OIL is not going to make a smooth transition to anything else overnight.  The pain must be moderated till something can be done to in fact make that transition. MASS TRANSIT is NOT nor has it EVER been an answer in America.  This nation is just too big with millions of towns and cities.  The cost would be 20 trillion dollars or more.  It is much cheaper to move to electric or hydrogen fuel cell cars instead of trying to build 100 million miles of train routes.  People need to understand the dynamics of the situtation. Secondly.  I understand this site is not based upon American soil so with that in mind Im confused as to why a Swedish citizen would want Barak Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan when as I can see it there really is no vested interest there for you.  Even if you have troops in Afghanistan as a favor to the US I would think you would want to come home not escalate and accelerate the war there. Just curious.

utsu "You are from sweeden.  You live in sweeden. " Sweden. "a small country that is suited I suppose to mass transit and other means of traversing your landscape." I understand that distances are bigger, that your far lower gas prices are offset by economic conditions and considerations that do not affect us Swedes and that your societies are built around the assumption that people drive a lot. Fine. But gas prices will remain where they are because the providers simply have no economic incentive to make gas cheaper. They aren't keeping prices artificially high, they just don't need to make it cheaper. So McCain's solution is just ideology and pandering. I want cheaper gas for Americans because their being ruined at the pump doesn't help the environment in any significant way, it's just needless suffering. "people are losing jobs, homes, healthcoverage and a means to support themselves because of the price of gasoline." Desperation - I gotcha. They partly have themselves to blame for unleashing chaos in the region where their oil comes from. Also, for never demanding that those in charge start the transformation that will make the US a nation capable of economic stability with or without cheap oil. The mighty wanted Iraqi oil for long-term stability, failed miserably in securing the region and the little people are paying the price - the engineers of the war are financially secure. But nevertheless - I completely understand why the people in the wide-spread states care about energy policy. With this in mind, I doubt their sanity when they so willingly embrace McCain's pet solution - it won't help in their plight. It's funny, US policy for a few decades has been about preventing the nations of the oil-rich middle east from tending towards Moscow or a pan-Arabic alliance. Now, due to the hubris of the hawks and the ultra-rich golf buddies - together with their manipulation of the American people - the nightmare of a hostile nation (Iran) controlling almost 30 % of the discovered oil in the world is more possible than ever. "why a Swedish citizen would want Barak Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan when as I can see it there really is no vested interest there for you." I want the enemies of human rights and left-wing values killed, dead and gone. I want one of the more patriarchal countries in the world set on the track for a modicum of equality and stability. I also want terrorists put down as well, and I want the US to pay through the nose in rebuilding Afghanistan after all it did to ruin the country in the past. As a left-wing Western humanist I have no reason to be against the Afghanistan war in theory, it's a shame that the US/NATO practice in the war is so lacking. "even if you have troops in Afghanistan as a favor to the US I would think you would want to come home not escalate and accelerate the war there." I want Sweden to actively help in wars that have the potential to be good and are morally justified. Seeing as the surge in Iraq worked I want one in Afghanistan instead - there must be an effort to make a decisive impact on Afghanistan so that positive developments can begin once there are no more resourcea/political will to remain. Make no mistake - I am happy that Obama's prediction regarding the surge was wrong, but I do not think that AQ is a big threat in Iraq and I also think that from a martial and moral standpoint the war in Afghanistan is a priority. Obama will guard positive developments in Iraq with anti-terrorism strike forces, and he will focus on the transit area for terrorists to the sensitive Afg/Iraq countries - the Pak/Afg border.

RRRocks utsu.   You want to kill those who oppose human rights AND LEFT WING VALUES..........oh theirs a gem. You support A moral and justified war. You want to kill those opposed to left wing values.........does that include me?  I oppose most left wing values.    

utsu "You want to kill those opposed to left wing values………does that include me?  I oppose most left wing values." I consider equality between sexes, equality between sexualities, secularism, lack of authoritarianism, a lack of parochialism and tolerance of diversity (all lacking Afg) etc. to be primarily left-wing values if you look at history. Even after the enlightenment conservatives could not be trusted to support what they support today. But in general I chose my words poorly. People who oppose left-wing values today almost always have other gripes than the above. I retract fully, apologize for my inconsiderate choice of words and the word "left-wing values" should be replaced with "humanist values".

RRRocks Well Im glad you cleared that up cause quite honestly I was flabberghasted when I read that.   As to the values you hold dear......do you seriously think that any nation can waltz into Afghanistan and make them see the light and adopt that which you believe is best for citizens of any country?

RRRocks Another thing I dont understand is why the retribution for America over Afghanistan?  Why do you want them to pay thru the nose for there actions in Afghanistan when in reality they went into that country to try and bring about many of the social values you hold so dear? I am confused as to why the USA should pay out the nose when YOU yourself want to continue in Afghanistan and escalate the war and destroy those who would oppose a transformation?  

utsu "do you seriously think that any nation can waltz into Afghanistan and make them see the light and adopt that which you believe is best for citizens of any country?" Nope, it would have to be a quite violent and patient samba. I don't expect pride parades, but I want to try turning Afg into something more stable, united and free and I think you can create the conditions for that. "Why do you want them to pay thru the nose for there actions in Afghanistan when in reality they went into that country to try and bring about many of the social values you hold so dear?" Because the US has conducted the Afg occupation in many ways that break international law and has destabilized many villages and parishes unnecessarilly. Responsibility is Alpha and Omega when conducting war these days. "I am confused as to why the USA should pay out the nose when YOU yourself want to continue in Afghanistan and escalate the war and destroy those who would oppose a transformation?" Us Swedes pay somewhat as well, but we did not outline the strategy and our troops did not commit the breaches against international law that created suffering in the region. I want the US to really feel the effects of barging in a misconducting warfare, just like I want France to suffer for its ongoing misdeeds in Africa.

RRRocks Are you part of the new leftist revolution I was reading about in Sweeden?  

utsu "Are you part of the new leftist revolution I was reading about in Sweeden?" We have been Social Democrats for about 80 years now and we are rejecting the centre-right alliance that got a victory in 2006 if the polls are anything to go by. I am not a fan of the Social Democrats but it appears that our current alliance is as ideological and uncaring about unexpected consequences as their predecessors, subjecting the unemployed, the military and the young to all manners of trouble that only seems ideologically justified. I don't see any leftist revolution (The Social Democrats have done some economic liberalization of their platfrm lately) and I am definetely not part of any left-wing in Sweden. I am left-wing on this site and probably a non-party centrist in Sweden.

RRRocks Dagens Nyheter - Sweden | Thursday, July 17, 2008 New left-wing movement The controversial bugging law is causing trouble for Sweden's coalition government and its politicians. According to the daily Dagens Nyheter, 75 percent of Sweden's students now sympathise with the left-wing parties, and student associations even say a repeat of the '68 movement is imminent. this is what I was referring too.

utsu "75 percent of Sweden’s students now sympathise with the left-wing parties, and student associations even say a repeat of the ‘68 movement is imminent." The wiretapping law is ludicrous, and typically Swedsih. All nations in the world spy on transmissions when they can, it's just that our politicians are so silly that they think it is possible to be open about it. Anyway, young people will be young people and the high support for the left wing was there before the privacy-ruining legislation. We are the 88th country in terms of population but we have an extremely powerful computer devoted to investigating us. Our own politicans has harmed our liberties and rights more than any terrorist ever could. I can't with good conscience stay behind the current government, but I am not part of a left-wing surge - I probably agree with the current government slightly more than I do their opponents.

RRRocks Thanks for the Information.  Always glad to hear about other countries for a change.  It gets pretty tiresome hearing how America sucks so bad all the time.

chandler talleur I'd prefer a president that would unknowingly make mistakes than a president that would make mistakes on purpose