Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/18/2008 1:10:09 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Listen to Charlie Rose's interview with singer / songwriter Neil Young tonight -- it's fantastic...they cover everything from the creative process, to his music, to his new projects, to global warming, and much more...I'm sure the video of the hour long interview will be on YouTube or out on Charlie Rose's website within the next 24 hours... charlierose.com btw, Neil Young has endorsed Barack Obama too.

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/19/2008 3:10:38 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

Memo to Obama, McCain: No One Wins in a War commondreams.org

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/19/2008 3:24:07 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Mother's Milk of Politics Turns Sour by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship truthout.org

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/20/2008 12:49:09 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

The Myth of a Toss-up Election huffingtonpost.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/21/2008 5:44:02 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Could Obama's Running Mate Be With Him Now? blogs.cqpolitics.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/24/2008 3:07:01 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Obama seeks stronger Europe ties news.bbc.co.uk

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/25/2008 1:07:39 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Charlie Rose has some good guests on tonight: charlierose.com Analysis of Senator Obama’s overseas trip with: Robin Wright - the Washington Post Jim Hoagland - the Washington Post Ethan Bronner - the New York Times _____________________________________ A conversation about the global economy with Mohamed El-Erian Mohamed A. El-Erian is a co-CEO & co-CIO for PIMCO, the world's largest bond investor with $692 billion of assets under management as of 2007.

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/25/2008 7:43:34 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Economic Model Predicts an Obama Landslide usnews.com This from Macroeconomic Advisers, the well-known economic consulting firm, using the forecasting model of Yale University political scientist Ray Fair: The Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC (MA) Presidential election model predicts that Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama will win 54.8 percent of the two-party popular vote and Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain will receive 45.2 percent in the November election, given economic conditions expected through the fall.... The Presidential election model relies upon four political factors—candidate of the incumbent party, approval rating of the incumbent candidate (if running), party, and incumbent party's term in office—and three economic factors—real income growth, the unemployment rate, and the change in energy prices. Together, these seven factors predict the share of the two-party popular vote garnered by the incumbent party. This model has correctly predicted the winning party 12 out of 14 times in our sample, and predicted the popular vote better than the original model developed by Ray Fair.... According to this model, an expected 47% increase in the price of oil (WTI) in the three quarters leading up to the election would reduce Senator McCain's vote tally by 2.9 percentage points, while weak real disposable personal income growth over the same period would reduce it by 3.3 percentage points.

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/29/2008 3:35:03 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

VP: Who Obama should pick 6.0 — August rush? americanhistoryy.wordpress.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/29/2008 6:09:38 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Obama's VP Short-List Shortcomings blogs.abcnews.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/29/2008 8:11:19 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Tim Kaine is a Really Bad VP Choice mydd.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/29/2008 10:12:00 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Norm Ornstein on the Election aga.typepad.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	7/31/2008 4:26:42 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: To hear Kaine say modestly he doesn't take any of the talk seriously is to make him the first governor in history of the Republic who doesn't aspire to higher office. So I guess that's a plus. But, look, as you said, in the past when you had a nominee who was a novice in foreign affairs, you try to take somebody who complements you-a Gore, in the case of Clinton. Reagan, he took Bush, the elder, who had been the director of the CIA, ambassador to the U.N. and to China. Even Carter took Mondale, who had some experience in foreign affairs. I think Obama is taking a risk if he goes with a governor who is actually a blank on foreign affairs. After all, this election is a referendum on Obama. And even though the vice president is not that important, the office is a lot more important today than it ever was. I mean, we've never had the country hating a vice president, and that's because Cheney has had influence in power. And having a novice who is in office, knowing that a vice president is going to be an advisor, I think he would — Obama would do well with a Sam Nunn or a Lee Hamilton, a safe old guy who has been there around the block, has a lot of experience on foreign affairs, and is not threatening in any way. I'm not sure he will go that way, but I think he really ought to. It would help him.

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/1/2008 12:49:56 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

A winning ticket? baltimoresun.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/10/2008 9:26:45 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

A Novel Approach to Politics truthout.org

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/12/2008 11:42:21 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

A conversation with two prominent journalists and a Bush-Cheney campaign official about why, in what should be a Democratic year, Obama can't put McCain away. salon.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/15/2008 8:27:40 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

MCCAIN AND OBAMA: DIFFERENT KINDS OF MEN uexpress.com By Richard Reeves* 08/01/2008 -- PARIS -- In comments that will be little noted nor long remembered, Barack Obama and John McCain each talked recently about what it was like running for president -- and, thus, about what kind of president each would be. Obama was in London on Saturday, July 27, making small talk with David Cameron, the leader of Britain's Conservative Party. Neither man knew a television microphone could pick up what they were saying, which was: Cameron: "You should be on the beach. You need a break ..." Obama: "You've got to refresh yourself ... I am going to take a week in August. But I agree with you that somebody, somebody who had worked in the White House who -- not Clinton himself, but somebody who had been close to the process -- said that, should we be successful, that actually the most important thing you need to do is to have big chunks of time during the day when all you're doing is thinking. And the biggest mistake that a lot of these folks make is just feeling as if you have to be ..." Cameron: "These guys just chalk your diary up." Obama: "Right. In 15-minute increments. ... And, well, and you start making mistakes, or you lose the big picture." Imagine that? The man wants time to think. It's possible that Obama, who has been an amazingly effective candidate, may be too thoughtful to be an effective president. McCain, in turn, was interviewed and analyzed last Friday by one of Washington's smartest reporters, Robert G. Kaiser of The Washington Post. Kaiser used as his text McCain's 2002 book, "Worth the Fighting For," in which the candidate says: "Although I seem to tolerate introspection better the older I am, there are still too many claims on my attention to permit more than the briefest excursions down the path of self-awareness. When I am no longer busy with politics, and with my own ambitions, I hope to have more time to examine what I have done and failed to do with my career, and why." Then Kaiser quotes former Sen. Gary Hart, a Democrat, about Republican McCain, and an anonymous Democrat who worked with McCain while serving in the Clinton White House. First Hart: "I think his mind is visceral, driven less by thought and more by feelings. This doesn't mean he's totally reactive or without logic or thought processes; it just means he's a fighter pilot. He reacts to circumstances." The anonymous one adds: "In the many, many years that I've been in Washington, John McCain is far and away the most emotional politician I have ever met. McCain is all emotion. People don't understand that, so they keep talking about his temperament, his temper. He reacts emotionally, therefore unpredictably." Imagine that? A man who trusts his own gut. A thoughtful President Obama might have blown the Berlin crisis of 1948, allowing the Soviet blockade of western Berlin to drive the Allies out of the German capital and, perhaps, changed the history of Europe and the world -- for the worst. After all, President Truman, history-steeped but still a gut guy, stood alone against his Cabinet, the National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to gamble that Berlin could be maintained by an Allied airlift of food and fuel. But, then, an emotional guy like McCain might have started World War III in 1962 by reacting quickly and emotionally to the news that the Soviet Union had sneaked nuclear-tipped missiles into Cuba. The more patient and thoughtful process initiated by President Kennedy eventually produced a way back from the brink. So, you pays your money, you takes your chances. These are not only two very different men; they would almost certainly be very different kinds of presidents in reacting to the crises of the day and the unpredictable crises somewhere over the horizon of the next four years. *Richard Reeves' weekly column has been distributed by Universal Press Syndicate since 1979. He is a former chief political correspondent of The New York Times and has written extensively for numerous magazines including, The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Esquire and New York. He is also a visiting professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. COPYRIGHT 2008 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/18/2008 6:15:47 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Washington remains hobbled by Iraq ft.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/19/2008 4:33:31 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Barack Obama might be running on a post-partisan platform, but he is more focused on building the Democratic Party than any other candidate in recent history... prospect.org

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/20/2008 11:08:47 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

It's gonna be Hillary dailykos.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/21/2008 4:54:35 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

One Last Clinton Scenario thenation.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/21/2008 7:35:21 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

McCain's Strategic Blunder: Opening the Door to Keating Five mydd.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/26/2008 6:28:15 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Clark's and Biden's Statements? Not Much Difference. Why No Fuss Now? huffingtonpost.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/26/2008 11:44:52 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Charlie Rose has some great guests tonight: charlierose.com Live coverage of the Democratic National Convention with: Mark Halperin David Brooks Al Hunt Adam Nagourney Doris Kearns Goodwin Jacob Weisberg Connie Schultz Ronald Walters

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/27/2008 3:26:01 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

The strange resurrection of John Kerry... tnr.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/27/2008 8:24:40 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Ken Burns Delivers Teddy Kennedy radaronline.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/28/2008 6:57:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

A Vote for Elitism richardreeves.com By Richard Reeves Syndicated Columnist AUGUST 22, 2008 NEW YORK — If you care about the United States and care about swimming — I happen to care about both — who do you want representing you, Michael Phelps or "one of us"? If you answer "Phelps," does that make you an elitist? Most of us, in one way or another, aspire or have aspired to be part of an elite, to be really good at something. That's the definition of the word. "Elite," according to the American Heritage Dictionary, means "a group or a member of such a group or class enjoying intellectual, social or economic status ... the best or most skilled members of a group." Not bad. But "elitism": bad. The "ism" word has evolved over centuries to mean, according to the same dictionary: "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority ... the sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group." Bad. In other words, Michael Phelps can be admired for being a better competitive swimmer than I was (a long time ago), but I'll be mad if he thinks he's better than me. So it goes. "Elitism" has become perhaps the most potent negative issue in American politics in our time. George Wallace, the racist former governor of Alabama and would-be president, used it to great advantage back in the 1970s, attacking "pointy-headed intellectuals who can't even ride a bike straight." He went a long way bragging that he was dumb and didn't like smart people. George W. Bush got further by playing the regular guy — or at least the most regular of presidential sons who went to Yale — against the intellectual pretensions of Al Gore and the wind-surfing of John Kerry. Both Wallace and Bush and a lot of other politicians coming from the right have clobbered liberals by claiming to be dumb and dumber. Lefties have been less successful, in recent elections, in trying to attack economic elitism. Which brings us to this year. John McCain, the son and grandson of admirals, was doing just fine for a few weeks attacking Barack Obama, he of humble if exotic origins, as an elitist because he excelled at Harvard Law School and uses and understands a lot of big words — and made some money writing books all by himself. Regular guy McCain — Obama is definitely not a regular guy — seemed to be doing right well in yelling that the guy with the funny name was not one of us. (There might be racial implication in that, but you couldn't be much whiter than Gore and Kerry.) And Obama, like Phelps, is not like most of us. In his business, he's better. Now McCain seems to have tripped over his own elite rich wife and real estate status. One of the most interesting things about following politicians is their bravery (or arrogance) in putting everything on the line every time they open their mouths. One or two wrong words, and they can lose everything. A risky business, as McCain learned again on Thursday when Politico.com asked him how many homes he owned (with his wife) and he didn't know. His answer on the houses was: "I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain replied. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you." He sounded and looked as bad as he looked good when, in his first congressional race in Arizona, he was accused of being a carpetbagger who had never actually lived in the state. That was true, but McCain had a killer answer ready: "I'm from a military family; I've moved around a lot. Actually, the place I lived longest was in Hanoi." The Obama campaign, like McCain in that first race, was ready to pounce, having researched the decimal points of McCain's millions. They had the answer and television scripts to go with it: "Seven! — and maybe a couple more." Gotcha! A gaffe. But it was a revealing one. As Bob Drogin and Maeve Reston of the Los Angeles Times began their report on McCain's confusion: "A political gaffe, it is said, occurs when a politician inadvertently tells the truth." This time, the knife of elitism has cut both ways. Both of these guys are accomplished and ambitious men in a killer craft. As they should be. Politics, it is said, ain't beanbag. And the presidency is not for the faint of heart.

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/29/2008 12:01:20 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

History echoes all around for Obama's big speech kansascity.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	8/29/2008 12:31:49 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

The Associated Press Keeps Up its War Against Barack Obama mydd.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	9/3/2008 7:30:57 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

"When John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, he was thinking only of short-term advantage. In reality, his pick not only increases the chances that he will lose the 2008 presidential election, it also threatens to split American conservatism in half for the foreseeable future."... blogs.tnr.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	9/4/2008 10:17:28 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Does McCain Need Independent and Moderate Voters? blogs.tnr.com [Alan Brinkley--who is the provost and a professor of history at Columbia University, as well as a National Book Award-winning author--will be writing for us throughout the Republican convention.] 03.09.2008 I guess the Democrats can't count on Sarah Palin to torpedo McCain's candidacy. If there is a danger, it is that her speech will overshadow his. After the really dreary and depressing session of yesterday, tonight was very successful, with two good speeches--the other by Giuliani. And I think they made the case that the Republican faithful wanted to hear, and they beat up on Obama in ways that will resonate with the GOP. But what I think this convention is really trying to do is to change the subject. Most Americans, it's clear, think this election is about the economy. In all the many speeches of this week in St. Paul, virtually none of them have had much to say about the really serious economic problems that are affecting the very Americans that the GOP has tried to enlist--middle class and lower middle class families. Instead, they are falling back on old favorites--the mess in Washington (and who has made that over the last eight years?), the political establishment (likewise), and of course the reliable whipping boy--the liberal media. This convention did not, I think, set up McCain to reach out to the independents and moderates he will need to get elected. Instead, he seems on course to try to turn out the right-wing evangelical vote in the way Bush did in 2004. But he will have a much harder time bringing out the vast number of evangelicals that Bush attracted. It will be very interesting tomorrow night to see whether McCain's speech veers away at all from the reliably conservative message of the first few days of the convention and returns to the more centrist image he was trying to project over the summer. --Alan Brinkley

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	9/4/2008 12:46:48 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Cognitive Dissonance fivethirtyeight.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	9/4/2008 7:38:58 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Palin Attended 5 Colleges In 6 Years huffingtonpost.com September 4, 2008 05:35 PM SPOKANE, Wash. - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin attended five colleges in six years before graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987. Federal privacy laws prohibit the schools from disclosing her grades, and none of the schools contacted by The Associated Press could say why she transferred. There was no indication any of them were contacted as part of the background investigation of Palin by presidential candidate John McCain's campaign. "Our office was not contacted by anyone," said Tania Thompson, spokeswoman for the University of Idaho in Moscow. Palin, the governor of Alaska, was born in Idaho. Her family moved when she was only a few months old to Alaska, where she was raised. She began college at Hawaii Pacific University, a private, nonsectarian school in Honolulu. She attended only as a freshman during the fall of 1982, school spokeswoman Crystale Lopez said. Then known as Sarah Louise Heath, she was in the business administration program as a full-time student, Lopez said. "We're trying to track down someone who knew her," Lopez added. From Hawaii Pacific, Palin transferred to North Idaho College, a two-year school in Coeur d'Alene, about 30 miles east of Spokane. She attended the college as a general studies major for two semesters, in spring 1983 and fall 1983, spokeswoman Stacy Hudson said. "We were not able to track down club affiliations or anything," Hudson said. The school identified one of her professors but he did not remember her, Hudson said. Prior to her selection by McCain, the North Idaho College Alumni Association notified Palin in June she would be the recipient of its 2008-2009 Distinguished Alumni of the Year Award. From North Idaho College, Palin transferred 70 miles south to the University of Idaho, the state's flagship institution. She majored in journalism with an emphasis in broadcast news. She attended Idaho, whose mascot is the Vandals, from fall 1984 to spring 1985. She then returned to Alaska to attend Matanuska-Susitna College in Palmer in fall 1985. Then she returned to Idaho, for spring 1986, fall 1986 and spring 1987, when she graduated. Despite her journalism degree, she does not appear to have worked for the college newspaper or campus television station, school officials said. She worked briefly as a sportscaster for KTUU in Anchorage after she graduated college. The McCain campaign did not have an immediate comment on Palin's higher education record. In a recent interview with the school's alumni magazine, before her selection to run on the GOP ticket, she explained that her curiosity and love of writing made journalism a natural choice. "I was always asking everyone the questions, and I still am today," Palin told the magazine. The University of Idaho is taking advantage of Palin's nomination. A prominent photograph of her is featured on the school's Web site.

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	9/4/2008 11:47:40 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

Jeffrey Toobin is a CNN senior legal analyst and New Yorker staff writer...He just commented on McCain's nomination speech and I tend to agree with him. Toobin said "this was the worst presidential nomination speech he has heard since Carter's speech in 1980...very disorganized, themeless...very boring...shockingly bad." Those were Toobin's exact comments in the last few minutes on CNN and I think he may have been right on target...I just couldn't connect with what McCain was saying or how he was saying it...at least a Republican like Reagan could actually give a very good speech (even if you didn't agree with all his ideas you had to admire his ability to connect and inspire).

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	9/5/2008 7:55:45 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

More of what people thought about McCain's speech: dailykos.com Political Wire: We've now heard McCain's personal story as a prisoner of war dozens of times in just three days and he included it again in his speech. It's truly inspiring. No one would ever doubt that McCain loves his country. But no matter the content, McCain had serious delivery problems with this speech. Starting with the awful lime green background (that later turned to blue) and continuing through McCain's difficulties reading from the teleprompter, the speech was very disjointed and hard to follow. To top it off, the crowd reaction at the end of the speech seemed forced and staged, almost like delegates were reacting to flashing "applause" signs at the side of the stage. Overall, it was a very mediocre performance. I'm not sure it got the job done. Washington Posts' Tom Shales: It's like staging a revolution against yourself -- saying that the Republicans have got to go so the Republicans can move in and clean up the mess. "John McCain was re-branding his party as the party of change," one CNN commentator said after the speech. "Re-branding" is a very popular term these days, but what does it mean? Perhaps that you can make something true just by saying it's true. Rich Lowrey: Don't focus on the words or the delivery or McCain's voting record with Bush or what party he belongs to. Just focus on change and the idea that Republicans are fighting for you. So I wasn't bowled over by it, but I'm still encouraged. Paul Krugman: "My country saved me," McCain said, "and I will fight for her as long as I draw breath, so help me God." At this point, the director should have cut to a reaction shot of Sarah Palin, the vice presidential nominee who statistically would stand a chance of becoming president should the ticket be victorious in November. Michael Gerson (MSNBC): The policy in the speech was rather typical for a Republican. Pretty disappointing. It didn't do a lot of outreach to moderates and independents on issues that they care about. It talked, about issues like drilling and school choice which was really speaking to the converted. I think that was a missed opportunity. Many Americans needed to hear from this speech something they have never heard from Republicans before. And in reality, a lot of the policy they've heard from Republicans before. First Read: "I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again," McCain will say, according to prepared remarks. "I have that record and the scars to prove it. Senator Obama does not." But when Joe Lieberman tried this line of attack on Obama, fact-checkers called the "claim false." Eugene Robinson: But after the two conventions, it looks as if Obama and Biden are going to do their best to focus voters' attention on issues -- the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, energy, and the environment. And it looks as if McCain and Palin have decided to run on a platform of personal history. TNR / The New Republic: Don't Believe the Hype: McCain Is Still a Bush Republican How did it play politically? Will it energize the base? Will it make swing voters swoon? As usual, your guess is as good as mine--or any of the pundits you see yapping on the television right now. Until the focus groups and polls come in, we're all just speculating. But I can register a verdict on substance. If this was McCain's answer to voter anxiety about the economy, it wasn't too impressive. Steve Benin: Baseball metaphors seem to be the preferred standard for political success lately ("homerun," "grand slam," "hit a triple"), but after watching John McCain's acceptance speech, I'm inclined to think he fouled one off. The pressure was on, but he just couldn't connect the way he'd hoped. Nate Silver: The crowd simply wasn't giving him much love when he wasn't talking about the three P's -- Palin, Petroleum, and POW. That led to a fairly dreadful stretch of ten or fifteen minutes as he tried to rebut the Democrats on the economy, which in turn reduced the energy level and deprived Mark Salter's conclusion of some of its thunder. *complete links to original comments and videos here: dailykos.com

To: JohnM who wrote (26119)	9/5/2008 8:12:20 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

from Andrew Sullivan's Atlantic Monthly blog: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com on Obama, McCain, Integrity 05 Sep 2008 08:02 am A reader writes: Way back in the heat of the Democratic primary, I told all who would listen that if it came down to Hillary vs. McCain I'd vote McCain. If Senator McCain was still around, I suppose I wouldn't regret that claim, but somewhere along the line, Senator McCain got replaced by Candidate McCain. I was dwelling on this a bit today and it struck me. One benefit of this long campaign is that it really does show a person's character. And I realized. We have two men running for president right now. One has stayed true to himself throughout despite all the pressure. The other really hasn't or maybe we've just seen what he really was all along. Obama said at the outset that he wanted a civil campaign on the issues. He said he would avoid the politics of person destruction. He demanded a cool, no drama organization -- much like himself. He organized a strong team. Set clear goals. Adopted a sound plan and stuck to it. Reasoned, careful. Solid judgment. And in the intense glare of things like Wright and flags pins, he stuck to it all. Above all, Obama really has stayed true to who he is. McCain on the other hand, despite his calls for a civil campaign, injected personal attacks. He cosied up to the same religious extremist he once decried. People like Hagee. And when that wasn't enough, he brought onto the ticket a evangelical with extreme views on abortion, contraception and sex education -- positions well to the right of most of the people in the Republican Party. And he hired the same polarizing, no-holds-barred political assassins that George Bush unleashed on America and McCain himself. Senator McCain didn't stay true to himself. He morphed into a right-wing, polarizing ideologue campaign. And why? On the one hand, he's ambivalent about his ambitions, but often he'll lose sight of his values and overreach for the sake of those ambitions. In other words, he falls victim to the allure of power and loses his good judgment. He doesn't stay true to himself. I dearly hope American's will come to appreciate this about these two men. One has stayed true to the better angels of his nature. One succumbed to the darker angels of his. Which one would make a better president in these sad and trying times?