I am more than just a McCain supporter, I am a McCain donor.  Ok, so I have not nearly maxed out; the amount I have given is so small Senator McCain would not miss it.  Nevertheless, I would like to think to what money I have given is being put to good use.  Unfortunately, McCain’s proposal to delay the debate has forced me to rethink any future donations.

1.  McCain is not going to solve the financial crisis.  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will make sure that, whatever deal may result, that McCain had nothing to do with it.  In fact, if they can make him look like the one who prevented a deal from going through, they will.  McCain seems to be assuming that the Democrats will work with him in good faith.  That is a dangerous assumption to make.  Ask George H.W. Bush.

2. Whatever the wisdom of the bailout/rescue plan, so far it is proving to be very unpopular.  McCain is not going to win over very many undecided voters even if he does help forge an agreement.  In fact, he may even antagonize his conservative base.

3. Delaying the debate will cause him to appear weak to undecided voters.  Yes, Barack Obama did chicken out of the last debate with Hillary after doing so poorly.  Yes, Barack Obama has refused to participate in McCain’s proposed town halls.  Guess what?  The undecided voters, as a rule, do not have enough of an attention span to remember any of these.  They will look at McCain’s delay as either gamesmanship or weakness - not statesmanship.

4.  We have been waiting months for the chance to get Obama on a national stage without a teleprompter.  Now that the hour is upon us, it makes no sense to delay.  We want Obama to speak unscripted as early and as often as possible.  By calling Obama back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis, McCain gives Obama a chance to make a rousing, rehearsed speech from the Senate floor.

5.  NEWS FLASH.  The financial crisis helps Obama.  McCain desperately needs to change the subject, and the debate would have given him this opportunity.  Remember the first debate - at Obama’s insistence - was to cover foreign policy.  By suspending his campaign and delaying the debate, he not only is passing on a chance to change the subject to an area that is in his wheelhouse, but he is also emphasizing (IMHO overly so) an issue that helps Obama.

6.  Obama is (for once) right;  a president should be able to multi-task.

7.  The only thing more baffling that McCain’s request for a delay is Obama’s decision not agree to it.  If I were Obama, I would agree to the delay then stonewall any attempt to reschedule.  Do you really think Barack Obama wants to come to a deep red state to debate foreign policy?  McCain’s proposal gives him a way out.  The mainstream media gave Obama a pass when he chickened out of the last debate with Hillary.  There is no reason to believe they will not do so again should Obama decides rescheduling the debate is not in his interest.

8.  Finally, if this debate does not go forth as scheduled McCain will alienate the entire state of Mississippi.  The only time Mississippi gets any national attention is when a hurricane strikes or when someone goes on trial for a racially-motivated killing.  The fact that Oxford was chosen as the site for the first debate has been a tremendous source of pride for the state.  The University of Mississippi has spent five million dollars to host this debate.  Just about every politician and businessman in Mississippi has some ties to the school. Trust me; you cannot screw Ole Miss out of millions of dollars and expect all to be forgiven.

Several pundits have speculated that Obama could turn Mississippi blue if the African-American turnout was high enough.  I never thought that was possible even if every eligible African-American voter came to vote.  Obama is just too liberal to have a prayer here.  However, if McCain alienates enough of voters in this state, it could cost the GOP Roger Wicker’s Senate seat and could keep the First Congressional District in Democratic hands.

Nothing good will come of McCain’s suspension of his campaign.  He has two choices.  He can come to Oxford and mop the floor with that liberal nut-job.  Or he can just hand Obama the keys to the White House now.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Obama wants illegal immigrants to vote (for him)
• I Hate Snotty Europeans
• Is Sarah Palin ready to be (Vice) President?
• Palin “bump” puts McCain/Palin strong for GOP Convention - Obama/Biden behind
• Gov. Sarah Palin and “experience”

The above commercial is being run in several western and border states by the Obama campaign. Put simply - it’s an entire pack of lies and a shameless attempt to inspire ethnic and racial identification with Barack Obama and encourage illegals to try and vote for him in the General Election in November.

The advertisement, which is in Spanish, says:

“They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with, the intolerance,” the television ad’s announcer says in Spanish as a picture of Rush Limbaugh appears onscreen with quotes of him saying, “Mexicans are stupid and unqualified” and “Shut your mouth or get out.”

“They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much,” the ad continues. “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families.”

“Don’t forget that John McCain abandoned us rather than confront the leaders of the Republican Party. Many of us were born here, and others came to work and achieve a better life for their families — not to commit crimes or drain the system like many of John McCain’s friends claim. Let’s not be fooled by political tricks from John McCain and the Republicans. Vote so they respect us. Vote for a change.”

Vote for Change? Who the heck is voting for change? Naturalized and born US citizens won’t care about the issue - and everyone else, I’m sorry, you can’t VOTE LEGALLY!

Unfortunately, Sen. McCain is on the “wrong side” of the immigration issue as he has repeatedly attempted to provide Amnesty for illegal mexicans in the United States. Obama’s ad is patently false in linking McCain to the party line on Immigration. McCain and the party are in direct opposition to each other.

To suggest that McCain ”abdonded” illegals is a fundamental misread of the legislative record. I don’t believe for a second as President McCain won’t try to resurrect it and get it passed. He firmly believes in it - and I understand his desire to essentially end a form of “slavery” in this country by having so many undocumented workers. It is shameful. It is illegal. It is unAmerican. However, amnesty is not the solution. I do believe I’m in the majority of Republicans on this issue.

So let me be clear on this issue - the Republican Party does not support illegal immigration to the United States and it does not support Amnesty. Doesn’t matter if your Mexican or from Mars. For Republican partisans, this is a core issue because it is about preserving American culture, preserving American Resources, protecting national security, and enforcing the rule of law.  The Party Platform remains, “We oppose amnesty because it would have the effect of encouraging illegal immigration and would give an unfair advantage to those who have broken our laws.”

So the only thing truthful in the ad that I can see is yes - Republicans really don’t like illegal immigration. It’s not been a secret. We don’t like people who break the law.

What bothers me most about this ad is the intended audience. it is a blatant attempt to attempt to subvert YOUR lawful vote with that of some illegal hispanic voter. The reality is - going back to the Clintons - illegal immigrants have voted in US elections, surprise surprise - illegally.

Obama knows there are plenty of illegals who are registered, who won’t be challenged at the polls, who will vote for him in the Fall. He knows the DNC is working with various hispanic “outreach” groups that are encouraging illegals to register to vote (either through getting drivers licenses or directly through the Secretary of State). Democrats also know that there isn’t a thing that can be done to stop this patently illegal attempt to subver the electoral process. Why? Blame the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the “Motor Voter” law, which was signed into law on May 20, 1993. Under this federal law, millions of non-citizens and illegal aliens were automatically registered to vote when they applied for their driver’s licenses or welfare benefits (yes illegals also get welfare on top of not paying taxes, draining public resources, and breaking our laws.)

The Motor-Voter law clearly states that “[e]ach State motor vehicle driver’s license application (including any renewal application) submitted to the appropriate State motor vehicle authority under State law shall serve as an application for voter registration with respect to elections for Federal office unless the applicant fails to sign the voter registration application.”

The Clinton Administration applied their famous “don’t ask — don’t tell” policy approach to the Motor Voter law’s implementation by warning Motor Vehicle Department employees not to ask if an applicant is a citizen or tell them that non-citizens cannot vote.

Why? Because Democrats believe that if they can frighten illegals into believing they’re the only party looking out for them - then that codependence provides them an advantage in close elections. The strategy is similar to how Democrats approach minorities and the working poor. They say, “You need us! Without us, you’ll die.” As the saying goes - if the Government robs Peter to pay Paul, Paul will be a loyal constitutent. It’s how Obama ensures the coalition stays together - immigrants, the poor, minorities, all frightened that Republicans will take away something that Democrats have made them dependent on. It is like the junkie who protects his dealer because, quite frankly, he needs the fix.

Now, why can all this occur - you probably are asking! Under the Motor Voter law, anyone [Motor Vehicle Department employees included] who “knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote” violates federal law.

That’s right - basically for voter registration - this is a national “sanctuary city” when it comes to inquiring about your status to lawfully vote.

Hence, the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, visa overstayers and others classified as “refugees” who were granted amnesty or asylum by the Clinton Administration could all have been illegal voters in this election.

Every vote they cast dillutes or cancels the vote of an American citizen, the only individual allowed under the law to vote. Democrats talk tough about ballot box fraud by the Bush Adminstration - something that has been investigated and essentially demonstrated to be unfounded - but this attempt at encouraging illegals is systematic, pervaisive, and deliberate fraud at the ballot box. There is no credibility for them on the issues.

“Whenever we get a punch from Senator McCain, we’re going to counterpunch harder,” former Transportation Secretary Federico Pena said in a conference call to reporters about the new ads. “We’re not going to take any vote for granted.”

Yeah… even the illegal ones. Straight from Mayor Daly’s playbook I guess… maybe this really is a repeat of the 1968 election… where voter fraud may play a role.

The pandering is shameful. Truly shameful. And its unlawful.

Hope and Change… or the same old tactics that have made Chicago the great city it is… voting fraud and scare tactics.

No mas.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Eight Reasons McCain’s Debate Delay is Foolish
• I Hate Snotty Europeans
• Is Sarah Palin ready to be (Vice) President?
• Palin “bump” puts McCain/Palin strong for GOP Convention - Obama/Biden behind
• Gov. Sarah Palin and “experience”

I hate snotty Europeans. They show up in America’s major cities and bring with them not only their hatred against President George W. Bush, the Iraq war and U.S. foreign policies, but also their disdain for Americans and American culture in general.

More often than not, these snotty Europeans display their disdain toward America openly, with the ignorance of people who do not fully understand their subject matter and the ill manners of a guest telling his host at a cocktail party that his wife is ugly.

On a slightly humid summer night in Washington, DC, I attended a farewell party for a friend who worked for a prominent international organization. The crowd drew heavily from this international organization and hailed from all over the world, including from countries whose names I had previously never pronounced and whose geopolitical significance I did not care to remember. But I put on a smile and tried to be friendly.

Someone introduced me to a young man from Switzerland who had moved to the United States only some nine months ago. Doing what people do at parties, I made small talk. I inquired how he was enjoying himself in this country. He said things were going pretty well but emphasized that he was lucky to be in Washington, DC. I assumed that like most young people, he merely enjoys city life (which, by the way, DC offers only in pitiful fashion). As it turned out, the Swiss believed that the rest of America, the big swaths between the two coasts (i.e., the heartland), would not be a welcoming place for him.

“Why not?” I demanded. By now, my party smile had come unscrewed. This European was killing my buzz and worse yet, he was beginning to piss me off.

“Because the people in those places are not that open minded and would not be very welcoming of foreigners,” he explained matter-of-factly. The two or three other European guests who were part of this conversation nodded instinctively and knowingly.

“In what ways are they not open minded?” I persisted, my voice slightly raised from clear annoyance. He paused and by now his cocktail party smile had come unscrewed as well.

“You cannot possibly tell me that people in Kansas City would be just as open minded as the people in Washington, DC or New York?”

Yes, I am telling you exactly that, I informed him, restraining myself from including any profanity in my response. “They may be less cosmopolitan but they are certainly not less open minded.”

The bystanders of this conversation had stopped nodding knowingly and were beginning to look a bit uncomfortable. Comments that berate Americans, often uttered by snotty Europeans, were not supposed to elicit a response, at least not from Americans who sip wine in the company of international types bent on saving the world.

The Swiss began to look rather annoyed. You can’t be serious, he said. All these people in places like Kansas City don’t know anything about the world; they dislike Europe and believe everything that Fox News tells them.

“No, Americans are warm and they are kind from all over the country,” I glared at him. “Just because they don’t know where you come from does not mean that they will refuse to get to know you.”

“Besides,” I added, for special effect, “95 percent of the nasty things that Fox News says about Europe are true and I’m already being quite charitable.”

The special effects worked. The conversation ended and the Swiss walked away to find more polite and enlightened company. I had obviously succeeded in killing his buzz too.

About a year later, I remembered this exchange with the Swiss, when at a hip restaurant on New York’s Lower East Side, two effeminate Frenchmen loudly and proudly declared their contempt for Americans and American culture to me, an American they had just met.

It was rude, as it always is, and the two Frenchmen were disgusting, as snotty Europeans often are. One would expect such Europeans, often well paid and well educated, to behave more respectfully toward their host country. Unfortunately, many of them do not.

Perhaps when Barack Obama becomes President, Americans can all become citizens of the world and eagerly nod at European insults toward our fellow countrymen. Until then, those of us who are far less “open minded” will continue watching the Fox News Channel and remain citizens of just the United States.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Eight Reasons McCain’s Debate Delay is Foolish
• Obama wants illegal immigrants to vote (for him)
• Is Sarah Palin ready to be (Vice) President?
• Palin “bump” puts McCain/Palin strong for GOP Convention - Obama/Biden behind
• Gov. Sarah Palin and “experience”

What does it really take to be President of the United States, and how does Sarah Palin measure up? The aObama campaign is making much of the “inexperience” of Vice Presidential nominee, Gov. Sarah Palin, saying that she is not ready to be President of the United States. In a rather interesting series of macbre statements by Sens. Obama and Biden, they have focused on the fact that if elected, Palin would be a “heartbeat away” from being President. This line of logic is clearly intended to suggest two things: 1) McCain will unlikely finish his term (hence my focus on their macbre nature), and 2) thus in voting for McCain one must also evaluate the ability of Palin to be President, since such an event is likely. This argumentation may ultimately backfire on the Obama/Biden ticket since the factors that make for a good President are present in Gov. Palin, and such intense scrutiny of her, is likely to convince the voters of that fact.

This is one of the few times my academic training may be helpful in blogging. Professor of Politics Fred Greenstein, wrote an interesting analysis of what makes for a good President. The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Clinton, offers lessons for presidents and the voters who put them in office. In the book, he analyzes the leadership qualities of presidents since FDR and rates their performance in six areas: communication, organizational capacity, political skill, vision, cognitive style (how the president processes information) and “emotional intelligence” (which Greenstein describes as “the president’s ability to manage his emotions and turn them to constructive purposes, rather than being dominated by them and allowing them to diminish his leadership”). Greenstein argues that these six factors are the primary determinants between Presidents that are effective, and those who sink in History. In the interest of “full disclosure,” however, I must add that Prof. Greenstein’s book met with mixed reviews by the academic community (a good sign it’s probably not a bad whack at a novel issue of American politics). Greenstein’s work was also criticized as being partisan (which is not something I agree with) because it pointed out the personal/emotional failings of Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, as handicapping them in terms of their greatness; something which I believe is historically accurate (he also criticized Nixon for the same issues, and if ever there was a man haunted by personal demons - it was Nixon). Nevertheless, I found it an interesting book when I read it and I believe it provides a good model to evaluate Presidents in a non-partisan manner.

One thing that I think is interesting to understand in the debate about Gov. Palin is - no one compares Palin to Biden (or even to McCain) in her qualifications to be President. Instead, both Republicans and Democrats compare her to Obama. I find this interesting because there is an implicit subtext, that seems to be accepted by the voters on both sides of the isle, that the weaker experienced candidates in both tickets is Obama for the Democrats and Palin for the Republicans. Personally, I’d be quite bemused by this if I were Sen. Biden. Sen. Biden couldn’t get more than 3 people to vote for him during the electoral process, but, now that he’s the nominee for Vice President, he’s seen as more qualified in many respects than the guy on the top of the ticket - the guy who won the most delegates. Because voters seem to like this comparison - Obama v. Palin, let’s take a quick review, given Dr. Greenstein’s criteria, and see how they stack up.

I think Dr. Greenstein’s book is really on point because, having served in government and advised senior officials, having written materials for cabinet officials, and things for the Vice President and the President; having sat in meetings watching decisions made (good and bad); having read the memoirs and the “tell all” books of officials; Greenstein’s criteria are really good at capturing what makes for a good senior executive. As much as I’ve talked about inexperience, competency, etc., the reality is, any President has at his/her disposal, the absolute BEST subject matter experts on anything that will confront the President. The United States Government maintains a stock of experts on just about everything. Whether their advice is heeded (as was not the case in Richard Clarke’s case, a man who was right, but couldn’t get his point adequately across), or whether or not the advice is properly acted upon (as was the case in situations like Katrina), is always a different story. However, no president will fail for not having the resource to “know” the facts and contours of a problem. The ability to process information and make decisions effectively is largely governed by the ideas that Greenstein evaluates. The ability to get those decisions accepted, manage the political process, and communicate to the electorate seperate those Presidents who are merely exceptionally good technocrats (President G.H.W. Bush) from those who were exceptionally beloved Presidents who became iconoclastic in history (Ronald Reagan & FDR). Experience is not the primary driving factor about who makes for a good President. As much as I hate to say it, Obama’s claims to “judgment” being the most important factor is probably not too far off the mark. (Luckily, I believe that Sen. McCain’s ability to exercise judgment is considerably above that of Sen. Obama, so I don’t feel too bad in making this concession.)

Let me begin by saying, I think Sen. Obama would rank well in all six categories. I think it would be hard to say otherwise - Obama is a remarkably candidate who quite frankly has been a candidate for President we’ve have never experienced. His ability to communicate is superior - really surpassing people like JFK in his oratory abilities. His organizational capacity is - well - exceptional. He created an organization that defeated an entrenched “incumbant” candidate who had superior fundraising (initially) and has raised more money and built a grassroots campaign that I believe even Republicans must stand up and give a “golf clap” to in acknowledgement. He has exceptional political skill - deftly deflecting criticism (although in Greenstein’s case, he was talking about measuring the ability to manage the political machinery; something that Obama has yet to fully demonstrate). His vision is compelling - and he has communicated it well - evidence the 100K people who came to his Mile High Stadium acceptance speech and the 40M who watched it worldwide. Where I think Sen. Obama likely has weakness is in his cognitive abilities (he’s a smart guy, but he hasn’t demonstrated he can synthesize issues too well “on the fly” - viz., his “Iran” remarks as just one example). Moreover, it’s not clear to me that he can always manage his emotions well. While he hasn’t had a blow up - one can see the possibility for one given how he seems driven at times by a self-righteous attitude. All in all, however, according to Dr. Greenstein’s criteria - Obama ranks exceptionally well.

Now, what about Gov. Palin. First issue - Communication. I think while not having been tested on the national scene very much, Gov. Palin is a good communicator. Gov. Palin became governor by defeating an incumbatnt Governor from her own party. Although on a much smaller scale, Palin did to Gov. Murkowski what Obama did to Clinton - defeated an entrenched candidate who had significant political advantage. Gov. Palin did that because she tapped into what the voters of Alaska wanted, government reform. While it’s not “Yes we can,” tapping into the deepfelt anger and emotion of Democrats, it nevertheless connected her with Alaska’s voters and propelled her to the Governorship, and kept her approval ratings at a level President Bush only enjoyed in the months after 9-11. She has the potential to be a good communicator on the national level - and her acceptance speech was well received. As we will see at the VP debates, Gov. Palin will tap into the things that Americans want to talk about - balancing the committments of family, job, and struggling to make it all work. She knows these issues first hand and has already begun to garner support in connecting with voters on these issues. I think the Debates may prove prickly for Biden since the expectations for him are so high - and Palin will wildly exceed the expectations of both “average joe” and pundits alike.

In terms of vision, Vice Presidents usually aren’t expected to have a vision different from that of the candidate. I think Gov. Palin’s vision on issues are a good indication of how she would want to lead the nation if she was called upon to do so. She pushed to get rid of an Alaska law that says hospitals or clinics can only build new facilities if state regulators agree the facilities are needed. She’s clearly in favor of free market and free enterprise. She pushed a compelling vision for oil exploration (something most alaskans want since their jobs depend on it). She is clearly a free market conservative who believes in the core values of the Party and has been since first being elected to city council. Probably more so than Sen. McCain, her demonstrated views and vision on the issues are more in line with the core of the Party’s vision and values.

In terms of political skill - again - while not a the national level - don’t discount Sarah Palin’s victories to date. Again, she defeated an incumbant Govenor of her own party. She took on Sen. Ted Stevens on the “bridge to nowhere” issue and won. Moreover, she’s done very well in achieving her lower taxes, smaller government, and cleaner government campaign promises. In many ways, she reminds me of Ronald Reagan - she came to government with a clear idea of what she wanted, and marshalled the political team to manuver around opponents, including at times her own partisans, and got what she wanted done. I think it remains to be seen as to how well she would do at the national level - but considering what Sen. Obama has achieved at the federal level (nothing), I think she is a better bet to get things accomplished. More importantly (and tying back into the issues of vision and communication) the voters of Alaska responded to her: A Rasmussen Reports poll from July 31, 2008 showed 35 percent of Alaskans rated her performance as excellent, 29 percent good, 22 percent fair, and 14 percent poor. That’s not bad for any governor - and as a President - it would be exceptional with more than 51 percent of the people thinking she was doing a good to excellent job (probably better than any Republican at the moment, given the anti-Republican atmosphere).

I’ll be honest - we don’t know much about her organizational ability - except to suggest that she probably as a flair for it. She won the governorship of Alaska with a much smaller campaign, that was significantly outspent, by her Republican rival and by the Democratic challenger for the Governorship. It remains to be seen as to how well she would govern at the national level - but - she seems to have done pretty well in Alaska. Personally, I like someone who looks at the position of VP and says, “But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.”

As for emotional intelligence  and cognitive abilities- I think she is a strong woman. How could she not be - balancing a family of five while being Governor. She doesn’t strike me as being one who is ruled by her emotions, nor does she strike me as being unbalanced. She has approached problems in Alaska with an attitude of calm analysis and consideration - not necessarily jumping to do the expedient thing or going off politically “half-cocked.” However, this is somewhat of an unknown for Gov. Palin - perhaps sometihng the voters do need to inquire into. However, given the people the voters have elected in the past (such as Clinton who was a known womanizer), Richard Nixon ( a man driven by so many demons it’s hard to count), and the dogmatic approach of “I know better” of Sen. Obama - one has think Gov. Palin fares well.

Gov. Palin is clearly a smart woman who has unfortunately been trapped (but at least changed course when elected) on certain political issues. This is a common mistake that politicians make. The difference between good executives and mere politicians is the ability to know that running for office is not the same as governance. The infamous “bridge to nowhere” debate is a bit more complicated than what the Media is saying. Palin initially supported building the bridge. However, when elected Governor, she concluded that the bridge was unwarranted and was a waste of the taxpayer’s money. She outmanuevered Congress (keeping the money that had been allocated to Alaska without building the bridge - allocating it to other projects in Alaska) but ultimately decided that building the bridge was a bad idea. Seems pretty savy to me - both in terms of political factors as well as cognitive ones.

While there is much we need to learn about Gov. Palin - the indicators are that she wouldn’t make for a bad President - certainly not as much of a neophyte as the Obama campaign would have us believe. Only time would tell how well she would do - she could wind up being like Harry Truman - the right person at the right time with the right skills. She could wind up being Gerald Ford - a beacon of stability in a time of national crisis. The indicators are there that she could be a good President.

And after several years as Vice President - I suspect her abilities would be exceptional.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Stock Market Meltdown, Bank Failures, and Recession! Oh my!
• US and World Markets fall and Congress looks for blame.
• The Sting: Now that the bail out is law - will it work?
• Bail out on the bailout
• House bailout bill goes BUST! Now what? Recession? Economic Collapse? Wall Street Implosion? Mass Hysteria?

The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden. This is absolutely stunning. It shows the weakness of the Obama/Biden campaign and the lack of a “bump” going out of the convention. As I said in an earlier post, if Sen. Obama did not clear 50% by the end of the convention, Republicans would win in the fall. Well - Obama didn’t clear 50% (49% was the best he did) - and apparently there is no convention “bump”. Despite giving the “best political speech in the history of humanity” (as Olberman called it), never broke 50%. If he can’t convince 50% of the voters - I believe he loses in the fall, and the polling numers by Zogby may explain why.

According to pollster, John Zogby : “Palin is not to be underestimated. Her real strength is that she is authentic, a real mom, an outdoors person, a small town mayor (hey, she has dealt with a small town city council - that alone could be preparation for staring down Vladimir Putin, right?). She is also a reformer.”

“A very important demographic in this election is going to be the politically independent woman, 15% of whom in our latest survey are undecided,” Zogby said.

“In the final analysis, this election will be about Obama vs. McCain. Obama has staked out ground as the new JFK - a new generation, literally and figuratively, a new face of America to the world, a man who can cross lines and work with both sides. But McCain is the modern day Harry Truman - with lots of DC experience, he knows what is wrong and dysfunctional with Washington and how to fix it, and he has chosen a running mate who is about as far away from Washington as he could find,” Zogby said.

The Zogby interactive survey shows that 22% of those voters who supported Democrat Hillary Clinton in their primary elections or caucus earlier this year are now supporting John McCain. That means roughly 3.5 million Hillary voters may be supporting McCain nation-wide. This could affect the crucial battleground states, and states that Hillary did well - like Florida and Pennsylvania.

Zogby found that with both “value” and “values” voters - Obama is getting walloped by McCain. Winning 62% support from weekly Wal-Mart shoppers, McCain wins these voters at a rate similar to what President Bush won in 2004. Obama wins 24% support from these voters.

Other demographic details are fairly predictable, showing that the McCain/Palin ticket heads into its convention on Monday with numbers that may fuel an optimism they may not have expected, and that many would not have predicted, especially after Obama’s speech Thursday night.

That’s the great thing about Politics - it ain’t over, until it’s over. Obama was riding high last Thursday - but according to Zogby, has unable to translate his “rockstar” status in to a sustained political effort, and less than a week from the Convention’s end, is behind McCain/Palin.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Eight Reasons McCain’s Debate Delay is Foolish
• Obama wants illegal immigrants to vote (for him)
• I Hate Snotty Europeans
• Is Sarah Palin ready to be (Vice) President?
• Gov. Sarah Palin and “experience”