F U m4me. You know why I said that? Probably because this is the sort of post that I just HAVE to rec. Great job.

Belief. Hope. Responsiveness. Integrity. Honesty. You know, all those things the other side apparently sold on e-Bay along with that jet.

Actually, they only put them on eBay. When they failed to sell there, however, they sold them through "other" channels and at a loss, no less. Just trying to keep the facts straight. ;)

Tell it like it is...I'm tired of voting for:

Lasers in the jungle somewhere
Staccato signals of constant information
A loose affiliation of millionaires
And billionaires and baby
These are the days of miracle and wonder

Awesome!!!

I mean, of course, besides his own campaign....

Voting to keep your bedroom door shut? Obama voted to increase Executive power via FISA just recently. Voting to rebuild those actual bridges? You mean to improve infrastructure, or are you talking in nuanced vagaries like "Change" and "Hope"? Voting for Family Values? How about a single-payer, national healthcare system? How about a living wage? How about relentless corporate watchdogging? Creating jobs? Ending Free Trade?

How about Nader? My pulse quickened when I saw the post title, then went arrhythmatic when I read the actual body copy.

Just one more Obama voter who can tell me what their voting against, and not what they're voting for.

I've pleaded on this site, to my friends who work on the Obama campaign, et al., to please tell me why I should vote *for* him, and not against something else. Seems like I did that in '04, and felt like the drunk guy who woke up next to the fat chick the next morning.

For everyone who so badly wants Obama to win this thing: Someone needs to tell him, his campaign, the DNC ... someone ... that he's alienating the populist Democratic base in order to court NASCAR Dad, the same guy who's ready to vote McCain because he wants to pork his frighteningly unqualified Veep candidate.

The 3-5% of us who're currently planning to vote third party are of open mind -- talk to us. We're as scared of another eight years of this crap as you are. What we won't do is whore ourselves and our Right to Vote in order to *avoid* a situation.

Obama's taking approximately $3 million more from Lehman Bros than McCain is. He's also recently flip-flopped on ending the Bush tax cuts. Is this Change We Can Believe in?

Dispense with the namecalling ("fuckwit" and "surrogate" are my personal favorites) and give me a damn reason to change my mind.

Dispense with the namecalling ("fuckwit" and "surrogate" are my personal favorites) and give me a damn reason to change my mind.

President John Sidney McCain.

Better explained by this guy: William Galston is a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution and co-editor of The Democratic Strategist:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/obama_needs_clear_message_on_e.html

What Obama Needs to Do
By William Galston

TO: SEN. BARACK OBAMA
FROM: WILLIAM GALSTON
SUBJ: ADJUST OR LOSE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2008

I'll get right to the point: You are in danger of squandering an election most of us thought was unlosable. The reason is simple: on the electorate's most important concern - the economy -- you have no clear message, and John McCain has filled the void with his own.

This is more than my opinion. The Democracy Corps survey released yesterday proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Backed by a wealth of persuasive detail, here is the nub of their conclusion:

In the absence of a coherent change message from Obama, many voters are accepting McCain's definition, particularly since they want to change Washington and clean up government. As a result, Obama has lost his double-digit advantage over McCain on the right kind of change.

When I say you have no message, here's what I mean:

First, you are not offering a coherent account of what has gone wrong with the economy - why it is no longer working for average families. People are anxious and bewildered; they want to know why jobs are disappearing, why incomes are stagnating, and why prices are soaring. If you don't offer an explanation, McCain's will carry the day by default: the problem is the corrupt, self-interested politicians in Washington; the solution is getting them - and government in general - out of the way.

Second: you are not offering a focused, parsimonious list of remedies for the economic ills you cite. As a result, few if any voters can actually cite a single signature economic proposal you have made. It's not that you don't have ideas. If anything, you have too many. At some point, more becomes less, and you are well beyond that point. You need to decide which three or four economic proposals are most important and repeat them relentlessly for the next seven weeks.

Your campaign already contains everything you need to do this. You could offer a focused economic message with four elements: rebuilding the United States, with an infrastructure bank, generating millions of good jobs that can't be outsourced; creating millions more jobs by leading the world in environmental innovation; significantly reducing the tax burden on average families; and offering health insurance to everyone at a price they can afford. If you say that about your economic plan - and nothing else - from now until November, there's a good chance your message will get through.

Third: you are not drawing crisp, punchy contrasts between your plans and McCain's. An example: the centerpiece of his health care plan is the taxation of employer-provided health care benefits. Pound away at that, and let him explain why throwing workers into the individual health insurance market unprotected is such a wonderful idea. And by the way, while your plan would increase coverage, his would do the opposite. Is that the change Americans want?

Fourth: your stump speech is too long and discursive. It shouldn't last more than fifteen minutes, it should focus on your agenda, not today's news story, it should feature short, declarative sentences, and it should leave no doubt about what you care about the most. Right now, regrettably, few Americans believe that you feel real passion about their economic plight and are willing to wage a tough fight on their behalf. It's your job to convince them otherwise, and you don't have much time to do it.

A message is a thought not only sent, but also received and understood. If your hearers aren't getting it, it's not a message. The essence of political speech is functional, not aesthetic. It is a tree judged by its fruit, and the fruit is persuasion. Right now you're not persuading the people you need to persuade, and nothing else matters.

Fifth: there's no coordination between an economic message and the rest of your campaign. If you want the focus to be on the economy, that's what your paid advertising and your surrogates should be doing as well.

Attacking McCain for employing lobbyists is a waste of precious time and resources; it plays on his turf and accepts his definition of the problem. Moreover, It diverts attention from the core issue - a Republican approach to the economy, shared by Bush and McCain, that shafts ordinary Americans and does nothing to help them deal with the challenges of global competition. So far, while the McCain campaign has gone for the jugular, you've gone for the capillaries.

Some Americans won't support you because they think you're too young and inexperienced to be president, or that you're too liberal, or not patriotic enough, or because you might raise taxes, or because you're African-American. That's inevitable. The good news is that by themselves, these Americans are not a majority. The bad news is that they might become part of a majority if they are joined by the many Americans who are open to supporting you but are turning away because they don't hear you speaking to their concerns in a manner that they can understand.

This is not about you alone; it's a matter of political responsibility. Millions of Americans have invested their hopes and dreams in you, and you owe it to them to campaign effectively, which isn't happening right now. Yes, the McCain campaign is replete with exaggerations, evasions, and outright fabrications. It's your responsibility to defeat them, not complain about them. If this means listening to advice you don't want to hear, and getting out of the "comfort zone," so be it.

Three months ago, when you were riding high, the McCain campaign was flat on its back. But give McCain credit: when he was told that to win he had to change, he did. He focused, and he accepted a kind of discipline that he had previously resisted. Now it's your turn.

If we had multiple candidate voting (I can't recall the term -- yeah, I'm a douchebag) where if your first choice isn't among the top two, your second choice is counted, then voting for a Barr or a Nader would be fine. With a one vote system, this is pissing away your vote. The problem with the various third parties is that none of the big names can shelve their egos long enough to run for a congressional or senate seat. The only way a third party presidential candidate will be taken seriously is at a point in time when that party has a couple dozen representatives in the House and a handful of people in the Senate and that party is now a household name. Nader shows up every four years to run for president and bitches. Ralph, shut the eff up, get yourself a congressional seat, check your ego at the door, roll up your sleeves and do some work. In the meantime, voting for these guys as some kind of principled stand is just sticking a fork in your own eye.

It looks like the headline of this post has been good troll bait.

The trolls were probably looking for a reason to support the geriatric Great White Hope with seven houses and his soulmate, as there is nothing the Republican duo has done to show they have the smarts or the motivation to get this country out of the death spiral it was put into by 8 years of George W. Bush and his delusional administration.

Beautiful!! Great post.

Okay, thanks for the response! I did go and read the talking points, but unfortunately, under the "leadership and experinece" section, it tells me that his face - that's right his face is his big leadership attribute. I just can't see how I can bet the future of the country on his face & his upbringing. The truth is, he has not led anything.

I live in Illinois, his "home state", and though we have suffered horrendous floods the last week here, as OUR Senator - he has done nothing. Not even commented on what's happening here, much less lifted a finger to help us.