While the food fight on the other side is fun, alas all good things must end at some point. We have our candidate, John McCain and we want him to be the next President, at least most righteous Republicans do, so who would we rather him run against? That's the poll question and the question for debate. The poll is needless to say..... Unscientific....


Aquilla

I'd rather face Obama than Hillary because I am beyond frightened of the prospect of the Chinese funded Clintons in the White House. I'm thinking that you are asking more of which one would be easier to defeat though maybe. Politics changes so much from week to week that it's tough to say. I think that Hillary has to take Obama as her VP if she somehow wins. If that happens will the Obamaniacs forgive and forget how she got the nomination from him? Probably. The old "dream ticket" would not be an easy win, even with the Republicans running basically an independent in John McCain. On the other hand, Hillary's negatives are so high that the old 2000's electoral maps will look with very strong for McCain plus Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota will be in play big time.

I believe Clinton will be easier to beat simply because she can't claim the 'time for a change' vote. Obama has played well in that camp and that is the one thing that makes him a formidble opponent for McCain. I don't think it will be enough for him to win though.

Once this mud-wrestle of a primary fight is over the focus will shift to issues and character, not necessarily in that order. McCain wins those over either Dem, hands down.

Obama will keep it interesting for awhile because his base will keep up the clamor for change and that plays well today. But when he's pinned down on just what he proposes to change to then he hits the wall and will fade into the sunset.

Voters of even minimal intelligence understand that trying to tax and spend our way out of this poor economy is foolish. As is dealing with our enemies from a position of weakness. McCain will not allow either, the Dems propose both, the voters will choose McCain.

Simply put, at this point, all McCain has to do is take notes. Clinton/Obama is doing all of the hard work for him. All of the "misspeaking" that is going on during the primary season is just making it easier for anyone else that is running. Polls will be polls, but the current state of affairs shows that many Clinton/Obama supporters will not support the other candidate. This can't be a good sign for the Democratic party come November, but like I said, polls will be polls and they usually aren't worth the paper they are written on. After all, look at how many people in the Republican camp are now standing behind McCain.

I think the issue for the Republican Party is how many people will be coming to the polls. I don't think it is a matter of defeating another candidate, but rather a matter of Republicans beating themselves due to not showing up at the polls. It will be interesting to compare the number of Republicans voting this year versus four years ago.

It depends. Will we ever see either of the 'first ladies" in a dress? Doubtful.

There's enough people who hate Clinton enough to vote against her. For the simple reason she is Hillary Clinton.

I don't think the same could be said for Obama. People would be more apt to vote for him, despite his nutball preacher and shrilly wife. We looked past Bill Clinton when it came to that, and look what happened there. But, I don't think people would be motivated to vote AGAINST him as they would for Hitlery.

However, if Republicans DO come up short on the long shot with Hillary, that would put Clinton in the White House, which IMHO is worse.

I'd rather lick the phlegm off of Flipper's blowhole than have Hillary running her socialist regime.

I shouldn't have voted in this poll too soon, because I'm really wondering just who we really want to face this fall. Not only to the benefit of John McCain, but to the benefit of the country. My initial thoughts were that Hillary was the preferable candidate because she has such high negatives and won't be able to move to the center against McCain. He won't have to worry about mobilizing the right wing of our party against her either - they absolutely despise her and Bill.

But upon review, running against the Clintons is a tough thing to do, just ask Barack Obama. He's run into a buzz saw of negativity and he's having a difficult time even getting his message out. I still don't know where he stands on a lot of things other than he's a classic tax and spend liberal, but he hasn't really had the chance to define himself very well because he's too damn busy defending himself. That's the way the Clintons play the political game. They deflect from the issues, and attack, attack, attack. Their brand of politics is the meanest, dirtiest, most vicious brand I've ever seen. And, I've been paying attention to politics for a very long time. If she ends up with the nomination and that's a 50-50 bet at this point, they are going to go after McCain like nobody's ever seen. The general election campaign won't be a campaign, it'll be a war. And, while McCain is much better equipped to defend himself against that sort of campaign than Obama is, I'm not sure that's in the best interest of America to wage that sort of debate in these times.

I think that should Obama gain the nomination it will be a far more productive campaign for the country. Sure the 527s on each side are going to jump in the gutter and have a knife fight, but the two candidates themselves won't. Over the past week I've seen a lot of Barack Obama and I believe him to be an honorable person. I have sharp disagreements with him on where he wants to take America as does John McCain. I think those differences will prove to be a stimulating discussion of the issues facing this country. The American people will have a clearly defined choice to make in November and that's a healthy thing. Soros and MoveOn can spend millions on attack ads with their 527s and no doubt our side will do likewise, but at the end of the day, an Obama v. McCain contest will come down to a decision of the American people about where we want to go. That's as it should be. A Clinton v McCain contest is going to be a knife fight and the decision the American people may be forced to make is who got cut the most. In my mind, that's not how it's supposed to work.

Aquilla

I think Obama would be a stronger foe. Hillary's base may jump onboard to Obama's side should she loose. But, I don't think a large percentage of the Obama crowd will vote for Hillary...she's created a serious chasm. Which begs the question..where are they going to go?

entirely non scientific, only an opinion.

That's a good point, Rhodri (welcome by the way to ), but at the same time I do think we need to look at what's best for the country. I personally believe John McCain can beat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the issues. He has a very strong record of getting things done as a Senator, and some of the things he's done have caused problems with a lot of the "base" of his own party. While that may tick off people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh (who's now sucking up to McCain big time), I think it does establish him as a true centrist candidate. I think a campaign between Obama and McCain will serve to establish that in McCain's favor. A campaign against Hillary will only serve to further divide this country on partisan lines. I just don't think that's a healthful thing.


Aquilla

My comment was meant to be an objective observation. Your comment has alerted me to how I shouldn't be posting here, I failed to read the fine print, luckily I didn't actually participate in this threads poll. I've voted republican in all presidential races since Reagan, but I don't declare myself as a republican, I like my options left open. With that said, I apologize for posting here. And, thanks for the welcome Aquilla

Obama has now damaged himself with conservative Dems and independents. It will be better to face him. And the scandals will not go away.

The Daily Kos and Dean can spout the 100 year war and other crap all day but Obama has far more to explain than McCain.
He is slick but many will get past his cool rhetoric and see him for the far left liberal he really is – and hopefully not vote for him.

I always wonder why people say things like "I want to keep my options open". Declaring yourself a Republican does not force you to pinky swear to vote for the candidate with the R behind their name. I voted for Ross the Boss in 1992 (my first vote for President) but I still considered myself a Republican then.

I am registered as a Republican, but I don't think the current elected Republicans necessarily represent my views. I don't know who I am voting for this year, yet.

ON this, I couldn't agree more. I am very disappointed that the republican party in the "lower 48" didn't produce a better candidate. I am mostly disappointed because the Republican party went with "business as usual" instead of throwing off the failures of the last 8 years and getting us someone we could all root for- the field was just really bad this year on the R side.

To be fair, I had to look up Duncan Hunter to see who he was when I took an on-line quiz, and that was the name that came up.

I have always admired the Republican party's ability to change with the times, historically, and I believe that they dropped the ball on this cycle.

One thing the republicans could do better is allow more discourse and give more publicity to thier more obscure candidates. We DON'T need another Guiliani, Thompson or Romney- those guys were losers from day one- they just had name recognition, all hat and no cattle and all that.

Now, I am not saying it has to be Ron Paul or anything

I am just saying it is time the republican party tried to field more viable candidates, with less negatives and not just on name recognition alone.

This may be a pipe dream, but in this, I EXPECT more from the republican party in this arena than I do the dems.

Hillary would make it much more possible for McCain to win, I think Obama is going to slaughter McCain. Not even trying to get into the debate over policy on this one, I just think the big momentum is going to go to an avalanche in the direction of Obama at this point.

McCain is just too easy to slam on being married to GW policies.

I appologize since this really is off topic, but I did want to point out that I am not just unhappy with the last eight years, and Bush isn't the only one that I am unhappy with. It is the vast majority of the politicians both D & R. We need a serious revolution and revamping of our elected officials in general. We could go on and on about that, but I just wanted to make that clear.

Republicans went business as usual? John McCain, the candidate that has Limbaugh and Hannity apoplectic is 'business as usual'? The guy who has been a thorn in Bush's side from everything from his handling of Iraq to his massive spending increases is 'business as usual' for the Republicans? John McCain, the man who co-sponsored McCain-Leiberman in defense of the environment in 2003. Very Republican business as usual move there CR. John McCain, the leading crusader against pork barrell spending in the Senate is business as usual? The guy who won't put in pet projects for his state? John McCain, the guy who allows reporters 24/7 access to himself all on the record instead of hiding behind selected questions and crowds or campaign managers is business as usual? The guy who refused Secret Service protection on the campaign trail until last month because he said it was a "waste of taxpayer money". Very Bush-like manuever there. McCain, the guy who calls people on the Senate floor **edited to remove attempt to bypass profanity filter** is business as usual? You are being disingenuous my friend. Sure McCain is pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-trade, and did actually agree with Bush on comprehensive immigration reform but he is not the same old same old by any stretch of the imagination. Only a completely closed mind could imagine that. McCain is an amazing opportunity for this country. A truly bi-partisan politician who has the sack to stand up and fight the good fight in an environment of corruption. An imperfect person who isn't afraid to show himself that way as long as he is doing what he thinks is best for the American people. A person willing to take a hit for telling the truth. If America passes on him, so be it. It won't be the Republican voters' fault for not offering a viable alternative to the problems of today. The unsatisfied American does not have to accept big government health care, increased taxes, over $200 billion in increased spending, isolationist trade policies, and abondonment of our allies to have change.

I couldn't agree more. A McCain/Clinton ticket would be a disaster for the whole country. Obama, maybe not so bad, as I see him going centrist on most stuff, hard to say though. Centrist is usually safer, as far as damage done.




He really doesn't have any real policy changes from the prior administration- you can hero worship him all you want- but he is no different in policy than GW- yes, he is CERTAINLY more honorable that GW- how can you go from bottom further down without a shovel?

McCain isn't changing anything on Iraq, isn't offering to overturn GWs various programs, isn't any more fiscally conservative than GW on anything real. Does he plan on revamping bailouts for major corporations like Bear sterns, while adamantly opposed to any program that helps common homeowners?

You may see it as someone that can tell someone to F-off as some kind of cool thing- I see as a weakness of an arrogant old man, an officer that thinks it is okay to abuse others to get what he wants- because it has worked for him in the past. Lord knows I have ran into enough officers of this type in my lifetime.

He was part and parcel of the SandL scandal, claiming he had changed because of it- but really didn't change his behavior one bit- going to bat for another person and getting a "stop it now" letter from the FCC as well.



I get really tired of GOP leader after GOP leader for some time now (and Dems too, I don't let them off the hook for this Scubatim) letting the big guys off the hook while telling the little guy to cut bait- either make it equal, or don't do it for either.

McCain is NOT going to change anything of any real meaning.

He did, however, have some small progress on campaign reform, that had no practical impact whatsoever.

McCain hasn't offered anything regarding health care other than status quo, or actually making even harder on the working man.

The foriegn policy things you just mentioned are nothing more than a continuation of the prior policy- McSame again.

Big goverment? Puh lease- the thing that torques me off the MOST about these republicans that have been coming out on the national scene is thier lip service to this concept. Then doing the opposite.

Has McCain made some sort of statement DOESN'T result in an even larger increase in our current prison population- which, as it stand now, we are worse than the most despotic nations on earth? We have more in jail than countries of more than double our population?

Come on now- something more than lip service and then the same old biz again and again?

Not true. Especially on the fiscal conservative part (see below). Since McCain's advise has been followed, things have improved greatly in Iraq.



Lip service? If you would bother to take an honest look at his stances and record, you'd realize that McCain is the real deal when we're talking spending. McCain single handedly saved the country billions by killing the corrupt Boeing deal which I've told you numerous times. In Obama's short Senate term, he's already input more pork barrel spending than McCain has during his 'half a century of service' to our country. Keep spinning the liberal as a centrist and the centrist as rightwinger. It's the liberal M.O. Repeat the little lies enough times and they become truth. I'm finished trying to reason with you because truth that doesn't fit your storyline is just dismissed.

CruisingRam



Lol Yea right, Obama is centrist? Thats a hoot. Obama's politics are far to the left, McCain on the other hand better fits the description of centrist, Hillary is even more centrist than Obama. Of course one time you claimed Jimmy Carter was one of the last decent presidents, so Republican or no, that sounds like something you would say regarding Obama.

Quit derailing this thread, CruisingRam. Your disingenuous Party tag doesn't give you that right.

Since Obama will be the nominee, the question here is moot. I think Obama is definitely more beatable than Hillary Clinton. Clinton has been through the wars, had the skeletons in her closet taken out, examined, given colonoscopies, and then returned for another round of inspection. There isn't much we don't know about her and the ammunition against her is old.

Obama is an unknown. One that can be shown for the liberal he is. His policies are going to hurt the very middle class he claims to want to help. An almost certain outcome of his election will be higher taxes, more government intrusion into everyone's lives, and less American leadership (and more "hey America never rocks the boat").

Yes, Obama is the nominee apparent to anyone but Hillary.

Amlord- unlike you, I demand results from my leaders- not lip service and bad policy disguised as something else.

IN my lifetime, I have heard ALOT of republican national level politicians promise the world when it comes to fiscal responsibility- and not one of them did anything but cut one program to spend like a drunken sailor on another.

"nation building" is another fairly new republican concept as well- used to be a dem thing.

Seriously Amlord- the "conservative" and "liberal" are just dumb labels for people that too uninformed to make up thier own minds about anything.

Hasn't been anything that resembles a small goverment fiscal responsible republican to win office in my lifetime. At no point, did ANY president make LESS goverment- they ALL increased it.

Dems do it too- but they don't pretend otherwise, at least,

What radical new reform concept is McCain going to reveal that makes health care in America at least competitive with all other developed countries in the world?

If he were to anounce some REAL reform- I would be behind him 110%. Get rid of the AMA, cut runaway budgets of DEA and such- and on and on.

He doesn't pay anything but lip service there Amlord.

It is not like ANY of them do otherwise- but this hero-worship of anyone that can fool you into thinking you are some kind of "conservative" while growing goverment and spending more money- well gee, if you want to buy into that- more power to ya.

Personally- I expect MORE out of my party candidate- NOT less.

the Republican party would be a lot more healthy today if all republicans held our own lawmakers to the same standards as we demand of others.

Nothing radical, thank God. I don't want the government running my health care. And I'd wager that the vast majority of Republicans think the same way. Keep the government out of my life.



Huh? The DEA's budget was lower in 2007 than 2006 (although it has risen with the rest of Bush's federal discretionary spending programs). Law enforcement is a Constitutional mandate. The AMA is a friggin' union (ok, a professional organization). The government can't get rid of that.

And what's this got to do with which Democrat we'd rather face in November? If you are just here to bash the Republican candidate, take it out to the general forum where I can continue to scroll past your predictable posts.

Oh, so you are okay with the system we have today- which is, without a doubt, the worst in the developed world? Nice- no wonder republicans are losing so badly. When I say reform- I mean LESS goverment- not more. The AMA are allowed to do things NO union is allowed to do- such as artificially keep thier numbers low by restricting the number of doctors allowed to graduate in a year- very, very anti-capitalist. I would do away with JACHO completely.

There are lots of free-market reforms that can be done to the health field- and McCain hasn't proposed even one realistic one,

The point of who we face in November is moot- as you said- so stop sidestepping the issue

YOU and other republicans have just blindly given your vote to anyone that makes claims to being conservative- yet, you do not hold them to the standards you held anyone else.

At least in Alaska- we are doing some housecleaning- that is why I remain a republican- at the local level, we are getting rid of the old guard liars and getting in some new liars.

"We decreased the budget but it rose with everything else"- and you buy that kind of slieght of hand thinking? Oh Gawd, no wonder the republican party is in trouble nationally.

IF there was more money spent- there was more money spent- period. More money spent means just that- it doesn't matter the mechanism for the increase- there was still an increase.

Lol, The worst system in the developed world? Thats a bold statement.

I have to back Amlord here by asking what that has to do with who it is we want to face in the General Election? Not like I'm trying to moderate here but this sounds like another of your anti Republican, Republican rants again to me. Its not hard to see that if you do vote it will be for a Democrat, so why not talk about who that might be, and what makes them more formidable than the other Democrat? At least that way you can project yourself as a left wing Republican while staying on topic.

Anybody on this site that reads your post knows you don't care for the current Republican administration, and that you are highly anti-conservative. If thats where you stand, at least work it into the conversation so that its relevant, instead of telling us something we already know.

Because it is going to have a major translation in November net- there is a very, very large segment of Republican voters that are very, very disaffected with thier party- and don't like having to turn to democrats to get the job done- not one bit. If I have to grit my teeth and vote for Obama- damn, that stings, big time. I would much rather see a decent republican candidate. I would very much like to see a republican that actually sticks by the values they espouse- and not the fake christian values that Falwell and others have ruined the party with.

There are several life long republicans on this board that will stay away from the polls in november rather than hold thier nose and vote for McCain just because the party says so- and it shows in voter turnouts as well.

The dems are going to destroy the republicans in the polls come november, simply because they have the same GD message with no change in sight.

It will probably be good for the party to lose badly this fall, so it can enter into a "rebuilding" year like the dems were forced to do.

Net- Daytonrocker and DTOM, whether you believe it or not, are the backbone of the republican party for a generation or two. Forcing them away from the polls is what is killing the party- NOT liberal lawmakers like Obama- or whatever other label you want to give him- bottom line is- the republican party had it all for 6 years, and blew it, and can't afford to keep doing the same thing over and over this election.

By doing this Net- we are basically handing the country over to tax and spend liberals- because the republican party didn't walk the walk they talked.

Conservative is something more than lip-service net- it is actions, and there HASN'T BEEN a fiscally conservative republican in office in my lifetime- period. Reagan spent money like a drunken sailor- just like GW- in fact, he was the biggest spender in history NEXT to GW.

How is spending gobs and gobs of money conservative pray-tell? How is expanding goverment conservative?

Reagan is the #1 reason we had the S&L crisis- it is 110% his fault- that cost us hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in bailout- more than was spent on welfare for it's entire history- that is big spending my friend- real money.

I hope a liberal never gets to spend money like either of those two.

The bottom line is- I don't think it matters who McCain faces- he is toast. He has flip flopped on too many issues, he has cozied up to bush too many times, and can't distance himself from the guy at this point- he may get lucky, and I may get wrong- but I seriously doubt it.

Could probably run Saddam Hussien against a republican party candidate at this time and still win.

Why? Because someone like me, DTOM, or Dayton rocker- BTW- one of the largest voting blocs in the US, "super-voters"- is our demograph- are dispirited by our choices.

I didn't leave the republican party- it left me.

Yes and I'm one of those who has been dissatisfied, but not with the politics of Bush, but rather his failure to live up to them in many cases.

Also regarding voter turnout, I believe that voter turnout amongst conservatives will be much higher in the General election than in the primaries. Conservatives are generally older and more reserved, and national polls have had McCain gaining on both Hillary and Obama significantly in prior moths, to the point where the race is aparently very tight. The hype surrounding the 2000 and 2004 elections on the left was high as well. There is usually early enthusiasm on the left, thats the nature of the party. There has been so much buildup on the left, that its hard to know where they really stand as far as their chances this November.

In 2004 I and many others were convinced John Kerry would win. The buildup on the left was high at that time as well, attacks and criticisms on Bush and the war were constant, but they lost again. This time Bush should be out of the picture but the rhetoric is maintained by the left claiming there is no difference between Bush and McCain in areas like foreign policy. Thats interesting because this time last year he was highly regarded on the left particuarly because of his position as a Moderate, and how he has challenged many of Bushes positions. Remember the endorsement he got from the New York Times?

Its interesting to see how things change in a matter of months, and how peoples memories in some cases are rather limited on the events of the past. Now that the election has drawn near the left has gone from highly regarding McCain as a moderate, to comparing him to Bush and I believe Its behavior such as this throughout the past that has kept Conservatives in the White House the majority of the Presidencies.

This election will be close, I don't know who will take it, but I do have a feeling it will mirror the 2004 election with one candidate succeeding in a marginal win.
This makes who McCain will be contending against quite relevant if you ask me. The politics between Hillary and Obama may be similar but there styles and support levels are quite different. Obama has literally become the rock star candidate who could say something cleaver or nothing much to speak of and get the same sympathetic response from his fans. I think that will potentially make him the more formidable candidate due to this popularity factor, although some suggest that since he hasn't had to deal with the level of criticism that Hillary has that he is untested and will fold under pressure for that reason, which is also certainly possible.

You just seem to debate points that illustrate how much you are dissatisfied with modern conservatism, which seems like a stretch in terms of its relevance here.

Regardless Net- perhaps it is my age- but I am a bit more cynical of ANY politician than you perhaps?

I just wish those that wished for smaller goverment and less spending would actually hold thier elected officials to the standards that we claim to have.

I am thankful, that in my own state, we have started to do just that.

I dont' want another 8 years of failed policies that do nothing for our country and everything for special interests that don't have US citizens converging interests.

If you actually listened to McCain and were a real Republican you would see the differences. Do you want big government healthcare solutions or not? Big taxes?

I am with Amlord – you are about as much a Republican as BoF and should not be in this thread. Go away - please.

In the attempt to get this back on topic after the most recent drive-by attempt by the troll in Republican clothing to derail it. I'm beginning to think that Obama is the more easily defeated candidate. He loses on virtually every issue and that's why all he can do, and has done thus far is attempt to tie John McCain with Bush. That's empty rhetoric that isn't going to sway too many voters. The other thing the Obama campaign does is whine a whole lot. Anytime he's criticized for something he said, or something his wife said on the campaign trail, he screams "dirty politics" and pulls out the race card. Meanwhile, people on his own side mis-characterize McCain's comments about American troops in Iraq and justify that as just part of the "knife fight". McCain can win against this kind of hollow rhetoric as long as he is who he is. Rush might not like it, Annie Coulter might not like it, but there's a whole lot of Americans who do.

So, a campaign against Obama based on issues is the best thing I think. We can win on the issues. A campaign against the Clintons goes right into the gutters and turns into a street fight. That's the way they play. Hard, fast and dirty.


Aquilla

I agree. In spite of all the Rev. Wright controversy, Obama really has not been fully vented and tested. I am sure there are many more skeletons in his closet that have not came out. Also, all Obama spews at his "rock star" events is empty rhetoric that is short on substance. Wait until the debates when he has to start answering the tough questions about what policies. He will fold quicker than a poker player. He whined forever about no more debates in the Democrat race because the questions were starting to get really tough for him to answer. I believe after the first debate he will be doing the same in the General Election.

Prior to the primaries, I felt that Hillary Clinton was the dream Republican opponent. She had mixed support within her own party, and no one would get out the Republican vote like Hillary would. As the primary has gone on, though, I see merit in things Hillary is saying about how she would make the better candidate. I don't think Obama has one a single state that is likely to be key in the election. New York, California, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Texas...the list goes on. Obama really hasn't won a single state of significance. Further, given the demographics of those supporting Hillary, I'm not sure I see them voting in large numbers for Obama. I think ultimately, though, it will hinge on what issue voters care for most. If it is domestic issues, I think Obama will win. If it is foreign policy, as much as people want to get away from Bush's policy, I don't see Obama beating McCain on those issues. He doesn't have the experience, and some of his comments already made just back up a perception of naivete in those matters. So, even though Obama leads McCain by greater amounts in polls conducted now, I think he still might be the candidate Republicans are more likely to beat.

I agree. But even then a CNN poll shoed that McCain was the only Republican that could beat her. Of course Blitzer framed it as “disaster for Republicans – only one man can beat Hillary” – what would you expect form CNN.

In any case Obama may be beatable but $$$ will still be an issue. He has the big Soros $$ and tons of cash raised by MoveOn and the far left who really want the WH.

It will be very tight. The deciding factor may be Hillary supporters who stay home or vote for McCain.

Aquilla, I am beginning to come around to the thinking that Obama may in fact be weaker. This thinking however is based solely on my faith in the over pronounced media-fueled hype of the Obama phenomenon. Collumnist Jonah Goldberg has described the Obama base as "Dean plus the black vote". This may be crude, but it holds up, especially when one watches Obama rally after rally in all their respective pseudo-messianic splendor. So, can this coalition win a general election? Probably not. In fact, not even close.

Hence, when Newsweek talks about Obama's "race problem" (that is to say his problem with whites as a demographic) a thread of optimism germanates in me (like far too many conservatives, I am utterly demoralized right now). It's no small secret that whites--particularly those over 50--vote in droves. Minorities and the much touted "youth vote" that is trotted out every single solitary election as a force unto itself is little more than a joke. In 2004, when armegeddon was all but promised to anyone barely 18 in the form of a "backdoor draft" and god knows what other tall tales they flooded the polls...only to find themselve making up their typical 15% of the national vote.

This is just part of the reason I am no longer losing as much sleep as I once did with regard to Obama's alleged groundswell. This in combination with raw vote counts from the primaries (an often under reported oversight, recently highlighted by Byron York) make me think that the media's estimation of Obama is somewhat over the top. He has star factor sure, but any reasonable scrutinization of the man sets him as yet another unreconstructed liberal of the post-1972 Democratic breed. If the GOP can bring this Obama to the forefront and more importantly stop its hemmorage from the right (via disengagement and dispair) they just might pull off nothing less than a miracle. However, never unestimate the media's constant drumbeat on the fresh "new" Obama v. the rather wrinkly John McCain and focus on little else.

And Hilary? Well who among us--outside those I refer to as the anti-McCain suicide cult--would not pride themselves to denounce her at the polls in their loudest voice? I tend to think our collective decade-plus-long hate of her policies makes us believe that hate translates to enthusiasm for a nominee. Lest we forget, this is the exact same mistake the Democrats made in 2004 (much to their dismay). I have to say however, there is some ironic joy I feel in watching life-long Democrats disparage Hilary Clinton, their eyes suddenly openned to her naked machiavellian ambitions. But whatever becomes of her, she will be back and I can almost hear her "I told you so" finger wagging speech, should Obama lose to McCain.

I think you are right on the money. Obama tries to portray himself as a “centrist” that will bring us “together” yet all his friends and many of his big money supporters are the far left of the Dem party – i.e. Soros, MoveOn etc.

He will try to tie McCain to bush and failing that has some big problems with the real centrists.

The left wing Press like NTY, Boston Globe etc. will push him hard but many people are too smart to fall for this and CNN, ABC, NBC biased coverage.

It will be a very interesting election season.