http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5873320&page=1

Obama now leads McCain among likely voters by 52 percent to 43 percent, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

That is a significant swing from the most recent ABC/Washington Post poll earlier this month that gave McCain a slight 49-47 point edge.

Look at the country waking up! Took 8 fucking years, but I'll take it.

Obama isn't the best man for the job, the best man for the job didn't even think to apply - but he's a great step in the right direction and maybe if he does what he says we might get pulled out of the muck. McCain lost my interest a year ago when he started pandering to the Bush crowd, and he's just gonna keep dragging us down while his buddies get off the ship in golden rowboats.

So much for hoping the economy would hurt both of them and help us get Ron Paul elected instead.


Out of curiosity Kelraz who do you think the best man is for the job that didn't apply?

This man right here:

http://media.npr.org/politics/politicaljunkie/2004/apr/paulsen140.jpg

ha.....

no rly.

I think people get into politics for the right reasons sometimes, and for the love of power sometimes ... but in the long run the power corrupts them. The guy (or gal) who we want for President is the person who has the good intentions but doesn't want the power. They're providing dental services for the homeless, building with Habitat for Humanity, or running some non-profit health clinic, or maybe even one of those government policing websites.

I don't particularly know who it is, but I know who it isn't.

You mean Carter?

One could argue that given the candidates since the Johnson era, we've had no one who would have qualified as a "great person" had they not eventually been elected president, whereas beforehand we at least had a coin toss.

It is hard to imagine where Theodore Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower would be today. Remember when our elected representatives were supposedly the best and brightest?

I fail to see how someone that graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law wouldn't be considered one of our brightest? What does someone have to do to be one of our brightest if magna cum laude from Harvard doesn't qualify.

How does Bill Clinton being a Rhodes Scholar not count as making him one of our brightest?

Seriously, what are your credentials Malse if you don't think magna cum laude from Harvard or a Rhodes Scholar doesn't qualify as one of our brightest?

But he's Muslim, you know.

A lot of people graduate with honors from universities. Pretty much everyone currently responsible for the financial crisis being good examples. That does not, in and of itself, qualify as being anything more than reasonably motivated, although certainly does put you miles ahead of some of the competition for government office.

Where are the candidates who have written books about something other than themselves? In as much as I think B. Obama is a stronger candidate than many others, is he good at anything besides being a politician? The world wonders.

Doctor Paul's book wasn't about himself.

Nor, for that matter, have Jimmy Carter's books all been about himself :). I would classify both Carter *and* Clinton as extremely bright men, who, due to issues related to their being hamstrung by a hostile Congress and other factors (the necessary charisma and forcefulness in Carter's case, the necessary character in Clinton's) were less than stellar presidents (but not terrible, by any means). Reagan and Bush Jr. were not exactly bright bulbs by *any* stretch of the imagination, both were to a large extent figureheads who existed to serve their financial and military-industrial complex masters (and in Reagan's case I believe that the better impulses in his nature were to a large degree exploited by the same) and Bush Sr. was, well, a spook :).

Richard Nixon was also a brilliant individual fatally flawed by his own paranoia and inability to separate the personal from the political; nonetheless, he was responsible for some excellent legislation and civil decisions, as well as the economic ones that set us on the road to ruin...

Being able to graduate from an MBA program with honors isn't saying much of anything other than that one can regurgitate the latest business doublespeak of the day. It implies nothing about intellectual curiosity, breadth of competence, or character, and to be frank, in my life experience in dealing with said individuals, it's hardly worth the paper it's printed on. In Clinton's case, being chosen as a Rhodes scholar indicates possession of a certain breadth and depth of critical thought as their standards *are* very high, but this doesn't mean the person can't be functionally incompetent in political office and/or a douchebag ;).

Regards,
Nydia

We might also separate wisdom and common sense from intelligence. The ability to earn high grades has little to do with moral reasoning or creativity.

I still like listening to Clinton. He may have done some boneheaded things, and I certainly didn't agree with all of his policies, but he's a brilliant guy.

King George, well, he appears to be lacking in all three categories.

Speaking of speaking, McCain spent several days in August 2007 in Bermuda and while there was quoted in the local newspapers as promising to defend tax breaks for insurance companies that locate there.

Is that a sign of taking a leadership role in this financial crisis?

Joe Biden is raising that issue, fortunately, while visiting Virginia.

WOW

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/346/slide_346_10164_large.jpg