<p>ZM, I still think that barring some unexpected event, Obama will win unless a lot of people vote against him because he’s black, or a Muslim, or some other irrational reason. I think I made it clear enough that there are rational reasons to prefer McCain, about which reasonable people can disagree. I just don’t think he’s likely to win, given the very weak position he is being given by the current administration–it has nothing to do with McCain personally (in fact, he’s probably the best candidate the Republicans could have nominated under the circumstances). Remember that both Gore and Kerry came very close to beating Bush, and he was in a much better position in 2000 and 2004 than McCain is now (in my opinion) and Obama (again in my opinion) will run a better campaign than either Gore or Kerry did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is with this that I disagree. I think rational people have lots of reasons to vote against a one-term senator of questionable judgment and very liberal views. Although I do think that Obama is very much favored for many reasons. But I appreciate that we can talk about this so nicely.</p>
<p>I still don’t think you’re getting me. I agree with you that there are rational reasons to vote against Obama. I just don’t think there are enough people who hold those particular rational opinions to defeat him, without the help of people who are voting for other reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am getting you, but I don’t agree. I think the electorate is so split that the small-ish numbers we’re talking about could tip the election. I might give you this point in late September or October, though, if there have been no unforeseen circumstances by that point.</p>
<p>I’ve come to the conclusion that Hunt’s repeated assertions are part of a larger Obama strategy to shut down any criticism of Obama. Apparently “rational” people are having “rational” discussions as to whether McCain’s military experience really counts as “experience,” --no problem. However, when anyone raises questions about Obama’s experience (or kind of experience or lack thereof), this is pointed to as an “irrational” “other kind of reason” for not voting for him. More and more people are catching on to this, and by the fall it is really not going to fly. Better come up with a new strategy.</p>
<p>McCain should pull a surprise and pick Colin Powell as his VP. That would shake things up. But he better hurry.</p>
<p>I don’t think Powell would accept. I don’t know that there is another viable minority/female in the Republican party at this point. Plenty of capable people but not ready for the big stage.</p>
<p>Well, where’s he going in the Demo Party? Nowhere. If he wants a real shot in 4 years it would be great training. Imagine a CP-BO battle in 2012?? That would be epic.</p>
<p>Problem is he isn’t “black” enough to grab the black vote. I think you would be disappointed.</p>
<p>“However, when anyone raises questions about Obama’s experience (or kind of experience or lack thereof), this is pointed to as an “irrational” “other kind of reason” for not voting for him. More and more people are catching on to this, and by the fall it is really not going to fly. Better come up with a new strategy.”</p>
<p>If you had read my posts a little more carefully, you might understand that lack of experience might be a rational reason to prefer McCain to Obama. When I refer to irrational reasons, I mean things like racism and false beliefs that he is a Muslim. But if the shoe fits, hey, be my guest and wear it.</p>
<p>“…lack of experience <em>might</em> be a rational reason to prefer McCain to Obama.” So whether it is or not a “rational” reason is in the eye of the beholder? In your eyes that choice, especially coming from a former Hillary supporter, it’s an “irrational” (i.e. racist) reason. You have made that clear. Lucky you to get to be the judge and jury.</p>
<p>Are there any “irrational” reasons to prefer Obama to McCain? </p>
<p>Of course not.</p>
<p>Of course I get to be the judge and jury, in terms of my own opinion. So do you. Others can also judge for themselves whether your reasons are rational or not. And certainly there are irrational reasons to prefer Obama to McCain. For example, there might be a few people who still believe that McCain fathered an out-of-wedlock child. That would be irrational. There’s also a nutty guy out there promoting the idea that McCain doesn’t care about POWs and MIAs. I think he’s irrational.</p>
<p>Well one really rational reason to not want McCain to be president is that he obviously lacks the temper for the position:</p>
<p>[SunHerald.com</a> : Cochran recounts McCain dustup with the Sandinistas](<a href=“http://www.sunherald.com/newsupdates/story/660742.html]SunHerald.com”>http://www.sunherald.com/newsupdates/story/660742.html)</p>
<p>[Political</a> Radar: McCain in Colombia](<a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-in-colom.html]Political”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-in-colom.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If he were actually president, this guy would go off the handle…</p>
<p>Be sure to read the whole Sun Herald article!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for posting, BedHead!</p>
<p>I would actually like to see a POTUS that shows some emotion and gets fired up about things. Just because he has a temper doesn’t mean he makes rash decisions. I’m tired of politicians as usual.</p>
<p>
Word is that Powell is likely to endorse Obama:
[Colin</a> Powell edging closer to Barack Obama? | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times](<a href=“Archive blogs”>Opinion: Colin Powell edging closer to Barack Obama?)
[Speculation</a> rife as Obama meets Powell - US Election - smh.com.au](<a href=“http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/07/02/1214950851434.html]Speculation”>Speculation rife as Obama meets Powell)
[globeandmail.com:</a> National](<a href=“http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20080613.wxbcpowell13%2FBNStory%2FNational%2Fhome&ord=70395026&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true]globeandmail.com:”>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20080613.wxbcpowell13%2FBNStory%2FNational%2Fhome&ord=70395026&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You want someone that actually loses his s*** when asked basic questions from a reporter? Don’t you know what that’s setting us up for? It’s one thing to call bs on things; it’s a far different thing to lack self-control – and McCain’s demonstrated he does. I think you say that now, but let’s wait until you see an example that’s as whacky as he can get.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My pleasure.</p>
<p>Here’s Cochran’s email talking about his support for McCain:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know, I know, bz2010, to you that reads like a love letter, what he said. To people who live in the real world, Cochran is clearly barely holding his nose.</p>
<p>[Thad</a> Cochran changes his tune on John McCain | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times](<a href=“Archive blogs”>Opinion: Thad Cochran changes his tune on John McCain)</p>
<p>The implicit criticism is that McCain wouldn’t be good on the economy. And since McCain himself has said he doesn’t know much about economics, that sounds about right. It turns out that showing guts and determination as a POW – which you can’t take away from McCain – doesn’t add up to economics knowledge and experience (Key up song: “Don’t know much about history, don’t know much biology…but I do know that you love him…”). Heck, it doesn’t add up to national security experience and strategic judgement, as Wesley Clark pointed out and then got vilified for.</p>
<p>Even if Thad Cochran thinks McCain is erratic and a bad nominee, what’s he going to do? He’s a Republican from Mississippi. He’s sure not going to support Obama.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The article says McCain recoiled and leaned back in his seat and said, “Please”. I don’t thanik that qualifies as “losing your s**t”.</p>