You know ultimately, I think, the American people admire someone who brings *a* party along with them, not someone who sets themselves away from their party. A politician without a party is like a...ronin, maybe?
Either way, I think Obama & Co. need to keep hammering McCain on "Bush's 3rd Term." It may sound cheesy, but I think it has a definite effect on the way people take in what McCain says.
I've been saying this for days, and now that both conventions have come and gone, I say it more strongly than before: THIS ELECTION IS FOR BARACK OBAMA TO LOSE. And he can lose it, certainly. And I'm sure Karl Rove is working right now to find out how to make Obama lose, but let me say this again- it's for him to *lose* and not for McCain to win. McCain has the easier task of sitting back and doing nothing because his victory hinges on whether Americans will buy Obama's brand of change. Americans hate change, generally, because they never want to admit they've been doing anything wrong, so most likely, if McCain doesn't have some *new* other woman (not the old "other woman": Cindy McCain) in one of his seven houses, I don't think there's much he has to do other than keep up the minimum level of attack that some would call defense.
I have this horrible feeling that "independents" are looking for a reason other than Obama's race to not vote for him, and I believe that it won't take much to find that reason. So I still maintain that McCain can kind of sit back and coast until election day.
Heck, even if he does have another "other woman," I'm sure he'll still say that he has family values- just for multiple families or something. The Republicans are damn good at turning what would be sins for Democrats into "values" for themselves. Just imagine the firestorm if Bristol Palin were Bristol Obama or Biden. The Republicans are allowed to do what they want because voters immediately identify them with values and religion. The Democrats don't have that safety net.
On the Bristol Palin note: the girl herself should be not attacked, I admit. However, to say that she's off-limits is also bullshit. I suppose for Sarah Palin, abstinence only education only refers to the children that aren't hers? I don't have a huge problem with people being set to a higher standard, but I do have issues with people being able to hurdle a lower one. Is it because Bristol has Mommy and Daddy's money (not to mention their nanny) that she gets to do whatever she wants? These are not issue specific to Bristol Palin however: these are issues about her Mother and her Mother's ability to be the moral authority she believe she is. I have no problem with the pregnancy- I have a problem with Grandma Palin's hypocrisy. At mitzvah on the child, of course- assuming Bristol herself got to decide on whether or not she wanted to have a child at 17. Because most kids at 17 choose to have a child of their own volition. I'm guessing Sarah Palin would allow her own daugther to choose, even if she wouldn't give the same right to anyone else's daughter.
I wonder what Levi thinks. One day he's a guy out to have a good time and the next he's on stage in St. Paul, MN with the Republican party's nominee for Vice-President, who, if he makes it, will be his Mother-in-Law very soon.
If Obama loses the election with all that's going on (like Gingrich saying Palin has more experience than Obama despite Alaska having a smaller population than Illinois District 13, where Obama was a state senator), I'm going to be crushed. I'm reasonably certain that even a Dukakis could win this election. I'm convinced a trained hampster with $100 million dollars to spend on shit could win this election against Old Man McCain.