Ben Stein: John McCain is running the 'most pathetic campaign' he's ever seen

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How can you run a good campaign when you don't know what the issues are?

You have a lot of great slogans like "hope & change" and hope the lowest common denominator comes on board. You take this great slogan to all of our 57 states and talk to the fallen hero's + do a lot of stuttering and surround yourself with people that hate the US and you end up with a great campaign.

You posts read like one of the people sitting behind a computer in the Team McCain camp. Keep those misleading chain letter Emails full of lies and half-truths and duhversion forum posts coming... :roll:

You mean people who start threads like the "McCain is anti-vet" one???

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How can you run a good campaign when you don't know what the issues are?

You have a lot of great slogans like "hope & change" and hope the lowest common denominator comes on board. You take this great slogan to all of our 57 states and talk to the fallen hero's + do a lot of stuttering and surround yourself with people that hate the US and you end up with a great campaign.

You posts read like one of the people sitting behind a computer in the Team McCain camp. Keep those misleading chain letter Emails full of lies and half-truths and duhversion forum posts coming... :roll:

What is misleading, the 57 states, fallen hero's, stuttering?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How can you run a good campaign when you don't know what the issues are?

You have a lot of great slogans like "hope & change" and hope the lowest common denominator comes on board. You take this great slogan to all of our 57 states and talk to the fallen hero's + do a lot of stuttering and surround yourself with people that hate the US and you end up with a great campaign.

You posts read like one of the people sitting behind a computer in the Team McCain camp. Keep those misleading chain letter Emails full of lies and half-truths and duhversion forum posts coming... :roll:

He along with Socio and Butterbean are part of team Crackpot.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Other than interesting comments about "Ferris Beuller's Day Off", nothing of note here.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How can you run a good campaign when you don't know what the issues are?

You have a lot of great slogans like "hope & change" and hope the lowest common denominator comes on board. You take this great slogan to all of our 57 states and talk to the fallen hero's + do a lot of stuttering and surround yourself with people that hate the US and you end up with a great campaign.

You posts read like one of the people sitting behind a computer in the Team McCain camp. Keep those misleading chain letter Emails full of lies and half-truths and duhversion forum posts coming... :roll:

What is misleading, the 57 states, fallen hero's, stuttering?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Lemon law]

Given the fact that the Presidential campaign is not supposed to kick off until the nominating conventions are done and labor day is passed, its hard to say something is pathetic before it really starts.

For McCain, campaign donations may be the delimiter operating, once the campaign really starts, its a two month sprint to the finish line. The wise candidate uses this time to get some R&R, reading, and lets his staff do the running.

It remains to be seen if McCain will take the Karl Rove type low road or not. And unknown future events hoover over the horizon, guess wrong on those events and it can be fatal, especially for McCain. Its somewhat a Obama's election to lose, McCain may be saving the big guns for just before the election.
Its always the undecided and the independents that really decide any close election.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How can you run a good campaign when you don't know what the issues are?

You have a lot of great slogans like "hope & change" and hope the lowest common denominator comes on board. You take this great slogan to all of our 57 states and talk to the fallen hero's + do a lot of stuttering and surround yourself with people that hate the US and you end up with a great campaign.

You posts read like one of the people sitting behind a computer in the Team McCain camp. Keep those misleading chain letter Emails full of lies and half-truths and duhversion forum posts coming... :roll:

Budmantom is afraid of change and resents it. We have to find a way, well we don't have to do anything, but it would be nice if we could find a way to ease Budmantom into the 21st century. He is likely an authoritarian whose world the hippies turned upside down in his perceptions. What is actually happening, I think anyway, is that change and mental evolution are dependent of the integration of mental impacts, the assimilation of different or new data, and that always takes place in concentrations of people of different backgrounds. Somebody growing up in the agrarian part of the country has an ancient mentality compared to people living in cosmopolitan cities. There is nothing different about Budmantom except for what he has been exposed to. If things were different it would be him writing this to me. He, in short is very much like everybody around him because those are the impacts he absorbed whereas people like me were formed by a massive comparative variety. All my life I had to question what the hell was going on while Budmantom and millions of his kind were frozen in ice. New forms of consciousness arise out of need and Budmantom is seeing his future and experiencing regret. He does not want to need. But need doesn't care. And he is already light years ahead of some other even more isolated folk.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How can you run a good campaign when you don't know what the issues are?

You have a lot of great slogans like "hope & change" and hope the lowest common denominator comes on board. You take this great slogan to all of our 57 states and talk to the fallen hero's + do a lot of stuttering and surround yourself with people that hate the US and you end up with a great campaign.

You posts read like one of the people sitting behind a computer in the Team McCain camp. Keep those misleading chain letter Emails full of lies and half-truths and duhversion forum posts coming... :roll:

You mean people who start threads like the "McCain is anti-vet" one???

If the McCain camp is going to paint Obama as anti-military then McCain's voting record is open for criticism - same as Obama's.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is interesting is that despite his pathetic campaign he is still barely losing to Obama who has best media coverage a candidate has ever gotten.

Imagine if the media wasn't in love with Obama or McCain got his act together.

As much as we talk about this campaign being Obama's to lose we have to realize that Obama is a VERY vulnerable candidate. If McCain could get his act together and go after Obama on those vulnerabilities he could make it a really tight race and have a good chance to win in a very Democratic year.

The media is in love with Obama because he's not a boring, confused, senile, old man. Have you seen him speak? He's as exciting as an infomercial on shoe polish.

IMO McCain has far more vulnerabilities than Obama and if the gloves come off McCain will be the one on the canvas.

The premise is wrong McCain has gotten a pass on just about every gaffe he's made, his weekly flip-flops and half truths are also largely ignored.

The main reason is that the media feels sorry for him IMHO, just pointing out his inaccuracies makes the MSM feel like they're cheerleading for Obama.

It's not really a fair fight.

In this case as with many others, the truth has an inherent liberal bias.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is interesting is that despite his pathetic campaign he is still barely losing to Obama who has best media coverage a candidate has ever gotten.

Imagine if the media wasn't in love with Obama or McCain got his act together.

As much as we talk about this campaign being Obama's to lose we have to realize that Obama is a VERY vulnerable candidate. If McCain could get his act together and go after Obama on those vulnerabilities he could make it a really tight race and have a good chance to win in a very Democratic year.

72 percent of Obama's coverage since he secured the nomination has been NEGATIVE.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...8jul27,0,6802141.story

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is interesting is that despite his pathetic campaign he is still barely losing to Obama who has best media coverage a candidate has ever gotten.

Imagine if the media wasn't in love with Obama or McCain got his act together.

As much as we talk about this campaign being Obama's to lose we have to realize that Obama is a VERY vulnerable candidate. If McCain could get his act together and go after Obama on those vulnerabilities he could make it a really tight race and have a good chance to win in a very Democratic year.

72 percent of Obama's coverage since he secured the nomination has been NEGATIVE.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...8jul27,0,6802141.story

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

^ That's a negative about Obama?

This just serves as reminder that many so-called studies are BS.

Fern

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is interesting is that despite his pathetic campaign he is still barely losing to Obama who has best media coverage a candidate has ever gotten.

Imagine if the media wasn't in love with Obama or McCain got his act together.

As much as we talk about this campaign being Obama's to lose we have to realize that Obama is a VERY vulnerable candidate. If McCain could get his act together and go after Obama on those vulnerabilities he could make it a really tight race and have a good chance to win in a very Democratic year.

72 percent of Obama's coverage since he secured the nomination has been NEGATIVE.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...8jul27,0,6802141.story

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

^ That's a negative about Obama?

This just serves as reminder thta many so-called studies are BS.

Fern

hehe I knew that was bunk but didnt even bother reading it. How can anybody consider that a negative view of Obama?

McCain is losing by 9 points, +1 negative about McCain. It is a simple stating of facts sheesh.

 

[evident]

carly fiorina. nuff said

who on earth would hire a former ceo whom during her watch almost destroyed a tech giant (hp) to be financial advisor

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is interesting is that despite his pathetic campaign he is still barely losing to Obama who has best media coverage a candidate has ever gotten.

Imagine if the media wasn't in love with Obama or McCain got his act together.

As much as we talk about this campaign being Obama's to lose we have to realize that Obama is a VERY vulnerable candidate. If McCain could get his act together and go after Obama on those vulnerabilities he could make it a really tight race and have a good chance to win in a very Democratic year.

72 percent of Obama's coverage since he secured the nomination has been NEGATIVE.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...8jul27,0,6802141.story

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

^ That's a negative about Obama?

This just serves as reminder that many so-called studies are BS.

Fern

Just shows how little attention you have been paying. For example, stating obama has a problem with a particular group can be negative especially when it is UNTRUE and especially when actual problems in the other campaign are not addressed.

Think about it this way: Why hasn't the bottom fallen out of the mccain campaign already? You have CBS editing his gaffes out, very few sources are reporting the problems he's having with his own state, and even fewer are excoriating him for his flipflops. On the other hand, obama was hammered incessantly after he abandoned public financing.

And GENX87, you knew it was bunk before you read it? You ever think maybe you have a bias against common sense? That was an incredibly stupid thing to say.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How can you run a good campaign when you don't know what the issues are?

You have a lot of great slogans like "hope & change" and hope the lowest common denominator comes on board. You take this great slogan to all of our 57 states and talk to the fallen hero's + do a lot of stuttering and surround yourself with people that hate the US and you end up with a great campaign.

You posts read like one of the people sitting behind a computer in the Team McCain camp. Keep those misleading chain letter Emails full of lies and half-truths and duhversion forum posts coming... :roll:

What is misleading, the 57 states, fallen hero's, stuttering?

Thanks for proving my point.

Funny how they keep coming back to the one verbal gaffe he made after a nearly year long primary campaign of sleep deprivation. McCain goes to bed at 7pm, sucks the blood of newborn infants, and still thinks there is a border between Iraq and Pakistan

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is interesting is that despite his pathetic campaign he is still barely losing to Obama who has best media coverage a candidate has ever gotten.

Imagine if the media wasn't in love with Obama or McCain got his act together.

As much as we talk about this campaign being Obama's to lose we have to realize that Obama is a VERY vulnerable candidate. If McCain could get his act together and go after Obama on those vulnerabilities he could make it a really tight race and have a good chance to win in a very Democratic year.

72 percent of Obama's coverage since he secured the nomination has been NEGATIVE.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...8jul27,0,6802141.story

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

^ That's a negative about Obama?

This just serves as reminder that many so-called studies are BS.

Fern

Just shows how little attention you have been paying. For example, stating obama has a problem with a particular group can be negative especially when it is UNTRUE and especially when actual problems in the other campaign are not addressed.

Think about it this way: Why hasn't the bottom fallen out of the mccain campaign already? You have CBS editing his gaffes out, very few sources are reporting the problems he's having with his own state, and even fewer are excoriating him for his flipflops. On the other hand, obama was hammered incessantly after he abandoned public financing.

And GENX87, you knew it was bunk before you read it? You ever think maybe you have a bias against common sense? That was an incredibly stupid thing to say.

Yeah, I think it shows how little attention somebody's been paying, but it ain't me.

Did you notice this too?

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

Too bad they didn't factor in MSNBC and CNN.

Did you notice this?

By the way, Lichter's group also surveys the first half-hour of "Special Report With Brit Hume," Fox News' answer to the network evening news shows.

The review found that, since the start of the general-election campaign, "Special Report" offered more opinions on the two candidates than all three networks combined.

No surprise there. Previous research has shown Fox News to be opinion-heavy.

"Special Report" was tougher than the networks on Obama -- with 79% of the statements about the Democrat negative, compared with 61% negative on McCain.

Special Report doesn't offer opinions until the last 20 minutes, and those 20 minutes had more opinion than all three combined?

Hardly anyone watches ABC, NBC or CBS for news anyway; all the action is on cable.

Notice how Special Report is said to be "tougher" on Obama?

79% vs 61%. So the Fox News Channel - the "Official" Republican TV channel according to AT P&N - has a spread of 18% against Obama?

CBS, NBC and ABC had a spread, as calculated by these boobs, of 21%. Wouldn't that be being "tougher".

Look, this "study" is garbage. Even the Dems (read some of Susan Etheridge's recent opinion pieces) ain't buying it.

Hehe, I'm sure Chris Matthews comment about about Obama "sending a shiver up his leg" would count as a negative according to these guys - shivers are uncomfortable. OMG, let's not even think about reports of people fainting at Obama rallys, that must be a negative X2 - fainting is not good for you and is another unpleaseant experience. :roll:

Fern

 

[lupi]

And yet Mccaon is still holding to only a few points behind even though there has been no substantial news on his campaign since clinching almost half a year ago. That doesn't bode so well for the other side.

 

[RY62]

I think the McCain campaign is doing exactly what it needs to do. Now is not the time to go for the kill. Most people aren't really paying attention right now and there's still plenty of time for the Obama camp to counter any push the McCain camp might make at this point.

Besides, if the McCain campaign were beating Obama badly right now, the Dems could just decide to switch to a Clinton/Obama ticket at the convention. The Republicans really don't want to see that happen.

It's amazing that McCain is keeping it at a tie but that's really all he should do for now. After the dust settles from the conventions they should start ramping it up.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is interesting is that despite his pathetic campaign he is still barely losing to Obama who has best media coverage a candidate has ever gotten.

Imagine if the media wasn't in love with Obama or McCain got his act together.

As much as we talk about this campaign being Obama's to lose we have to realize that Obama is a VERY vulnerable candidate. If McCain could get his act together and go after Obama on those vulnerabilities he could make it a really tight race and have a good chance to win in a very Democratic year.

72 percent of Obama's coverage since he secured the nomination has been NEGATIVE.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...8jul27,0,6802141.story

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

^ That's a negative about Obama?

This just serves as reminder that many so-called studies are BS.

Fern

Just shows how little attention you have been paying. For example, stating obama has a problem with a particular group can be negative especially when it is UNTRUE and especially when actual problems in the other campaign are not addressed.

Think about it this way: Why hasn't the bottom fallen out of the mccain campaign already? You have CBS editing his gaffes out, very few sources are reporting the problems he's having with his own state, and even fewer are excoriating him for his flipflops. On the other hand, obama was hammered incessantly after he abandoned public financing.

And GENX87, you knew it was bunk before you read it? You ever think maybe you have a bias against common sense? That was an incredibly stupid thing to say.

I have that thing called a BS meter. And I saw this thing circulating the internet yesterday.

If anybody has bothered watching the MSM the last few weeks you could have figured this out on your own. Watching Couric interview Obama. I was expecting the porno music to come on while she unzips his pants.

I'd say it is probably reversed in Obama's situation. But I wont write a study on it and try to pass it off as legit.

McCains campaign hasnt dropped out because as much as the left wants to believe in the golden boy. The rest of America either hasnt tuned in yet, doesnt care enough, or doesnt believe in him as much. Expect this to be a close race through the end. It is how it works.

Either way it still has to do with perception. And this study's perception is mentioning a fact is a negative view of Obama :disgust:

Clearly a bunk study.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How can you run a good campaign when you don't know what the issues are?

You have a lot of great slogans like "hope & change" and hope the lowest common denominator comes on board. You take this great slogan to all of our 57 states and talk to the fallen hero's + do a lot of stuttering and surround yourself with people that hate the US and you end up with a great campaign.

You posts read like one of the people sitting behind a computer in the Team McCain camp. Keep those misleading chain letter Emails full of lies and half-truths and duhversion forum posts coming... :roll:

I think you are quite serious when you say this.

And I am quite serious in saying that the more posts (edit) some of thes guys including the one quoted above make the more I believe that they are doing exactly what it is you suspect them of doing.

At least with people like Fern you don't get these canned, ready-made slurs and attacks that they try to hang on BHO.

Its easy to spot the "free-thinkers" from those that just have their "hit-sheets" sitting next to them whilst typing away on a keyboard.

Its seriously suspicious.

 

[eits]

i'm profjohn... omg, this is a troll thread!

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is interesting is that despite his pathetic campaign he is still barely losing to Obama who has best media coverage a candidate has ever gotten.

Imagine if the media wasn't in love with Obama or McCain got his act together.

As much as we talk about this campaign being Obama's to lose we have to realize that Obama is a VERY vulnerable candidate. If McCain could get his act together and go after Obama on those vulnerabilities he could make it a really tight race and have a good chance to win in a very Democratic year.

72 percent of Obama's coverage since he secured the nomination has been NEGATIVE.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...8jul27,0,6802141.story

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

^ That's a negative about Obama?

This just serves as reminder that many so-called studies are BS.

Fern

Just shows how little attention you have been paying. For example, stating obama has a problem with a particular group can be negative especially when it is UNTRUE and especially when actual problems in the other campaign are not addressed.

Think about it this way: Why hasn't the bottom fallen out of the mccain campaign already? You have CBS editing his gaffes out, very few sources are reporting the problems he's having with his own state, and even fewer are excoriating him for his flipflops. On the other hand, obama was hammered incessantly after he abandoned public financing.

And GENX87, you knew it was bunk before you read it? You ever think maybe you have a bias against common sense? That was an incredibly stupid thing to say.

I have that thing called a BS meter. And I saw this thing circulating the internet yesterday.

If anybody has bothered watching the MSM the last few weeks you could have figured this out on your own. Watching Couric interview Obama. I was expecting the porno music to come on while she unzips his pants.

I'd say it is probably reversed in Obama's situation. But I wont write a study on it and try to pass it off as legit.

McCains campaign hasnt dropped out because as much as the left wants to believe in the golden boy. The rest of America either hasnt tuned in yet, doesnt care enough, or doesnt believe in him as much. Expect this to be a close race through the end. It is how it works.

Either way it still has to do with perception. And this study's perception is mentioning a fact is a negative view of Obama :disgust:

Clearly a bunk study.

Couric? I could have sworn it was her interview with McCain that was edited to remove two serious gaffes.


My BS meter goes off whenever you post. You know nothing and bark too much.

 

[Genx87]

k

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is interesting is that despite his pathetic campaign he is still barely losing to Obama who has best media coverage a candidate has ever gotten.

Imagine if the media wasn't in love with Obama or McCain got his act together.

As much as we talk about this campaign being Obama's to lose we have to realize that Obama is a VERY vulnerable candidate. If McCain could get his act together and go after Obama on those vulnerabilities he could make it a really tight race and have a good chance to win in a very Democratic year.

72 percent of Obama's coverage since he secured the nomination has been NEGATIVE.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...8jul27,0,6802141.story

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

^ That's a negative about Obama?

This just serves as reminder that many so-called studies are BS.

Fern

Just shows how little attention you have been paying. For example, stating obama has a problem with a particular group can be negative especially when it is UNTRUE and especially when actual problems in the other campaign are not addressed.

Think about it this way: Why hasn't the bottom fallen out of the mccain campaign already? You have CBS editing his gaffes out, very few sources are reporting the problems he's having with his own state, and even fewer are excoriating him for his flipflops. On the other hand, obama was hammered incessantly after he abandoned public financing.

And GENX87, you knew it was bunk before you read it? You ever think maybe you have a bias against common sense? That was an incredibly stupid thing to say.

Yeah, I think it shows how little attention somebody's been paying, but it ain't me.

Did you notice this too?

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

Too bad they didn't factor in MSNBC and CNN.

Did you notice this?

By the way, Lichter's group also surveys the first half-hour of "Special Report With Brit Hume," Fox News' answer to the network evening news shows.

The review found that, since the start of the general-election campaign, "Special Report" offered more opinions on the two candidates than all three networks combined.

No surprise there. Previous research has shown Fox News to be opinion-heavy.

"Special Report" was tougher than the networks on Obama -- with 79% of the statements about the Democrat negative, compared with 61% negative on McCain.

Special Report doesn't offer opinions until the last 20 minutes, and those 20 minutes had more opinion than all three combined?

Hardly anyone watches ABC, NBC or CBS for news anyway; all the action is on cable.

Notice how Special Report is said to be "tougher" on Obama?

79% vs 61%. So the Fox News Channel - the "Official" Republican TV channel according to AT P&N - has a spread of 18% against Obama?

CBS, NBC and ABC had a spread, as calculated by these boobs, of 21%. Wouldn't that be being "tougher".

Look, this "study" is garbage. Even the Dems (read some of Susan Etheridge's recent opinion pieces) ain't buying it.

Hehe, I'm sure Chris Matthews comment about about Obama "sending a shiver up his leg" would count as a negative according to these guys - shivers are uncomfortable. OMG, let's not even think about reports of people fainting at Obama rallys, that must be a negative X2 - fainting is not good for you and is another unpleaseant experience. :roll:

Fern

So, they should have factored in MSNBC and CNN but not Fox?

And an 18 percent deficit is not significant even though Obama is considered to be running an excellent campaign whereas john mccain has been an error machine?

Why do you focus on the spread as opposed to the hard numbers?

Maybe you have made the common mistake of assuming the network MSM is liberal biased?

Susan Estrich opinon is supposed to mean something to me? I suppose Thad Cockburn has convinced you McCain is unfit for the presidency? Are we talking about the same Susan Estrich? Because it'd be odd if you misspelled her name considering you READ her pieces.


Don't criticize a study for being flawed using irrelevant observations.

 

[jpeyton]

McCain's running a "me too" campaign, following Obama's lead on everything from campaign slogans to withdrawal time lines. Voters won't even know he's alive by the time the polls open in November.