Stocks slide on oil slick
DOW'S biggest drop in 5weeks..falls almost 2%
S&P... biggest drop in 2 weeks...falls almost 1%
NAS ...biggest drop in 2 weeks...down over 1%
DOW down 199.81
S&P down 13.21
NAS down 23.83
CRUDE OIL129 .00 up 2.28 UP 34% for 2008
HALPERIN’S TAKE: Who Would Win a McCain-Obama General Election– And Why?
Successful presidential campaigns are primarily about one thing — controlling a candidate’s public image. The contender who does a better job of projecting positive traits — and minimizing the portrayal of negative ones — wins.
One example: John Kerry became a waffling, wind-surfing Frenchman in 2004 — not a war-hero, principled fighter for change — and lost, although President Bush was pushing forward with an increasingly unpopular war and his approval rating was in decline.
Even as Senator Clinton fights on, we are already seeing the Obama and McCain campaigns, as well as agents promoting the Republican or Democratic parties, trying to emphasize each candidate’s positives and define the opposition in negative terms (in some cases, by exploiting scurrilous, unfounded or overtly false ideas).
So beyond “McCain is just like Bush” and “I question Obama’s readiness,” prepare to be deluged with the “good McCain” and “bad McCain,” the “good Obama” and “bad Obama”— over and over again:
Funny and affable
Able to nurture and benefit from bipartisan relationships
Media-friendly (popular with the press/charming on talk shows and comedy programs)
Accessible and relatable
Angry and volatile
Represents the equivalent of a third term for Bush
Ignorant/out of touch about the economy
Unifying (with a broad appeal to Democrats, Republicans, and independents, and a personified promise to the rest of the world)
Representative of change (forward-looking/peace advocating)
Unpatriotic (ties to Reverend Wright/reluctance to don a flag pin)
Muslim (not true about Obama, and only “bad” in the sense that some would try to appeal to prejudice by suggesting that Obama is not a Christian)
On the bad because that is what stops one from making it to the oval office.
I think Obama is another John Kerry in someways. Kerry had more experience than Obama. Kerry did serve his country. I didn't see Kerry as a fake/phony/inauthentic person but I do Obama. The Elitist tag fits them both in my opinion. Haughty probably does fit them both. Inscrutable/mysterious/different...fits Obama very well. The Muslim tag that people have attached to Obama I believe is going to be hard to remove because of his fathers religion and his up bringing , he was all over the place growing up and some people just choose to believe he is a Muslim.
There is no denying John McCain's age but if you ask someone who is the same age as John they don't see him as old. Angry and volatile...Has he really had a fit of anger and done something to harm this country??? Not that I can find. War monger...I heard him say we may be in Iraq 100 years but I heard the whole statement and I don't see him as a war monger. Represents the equivalent of a third term for Bush....I have seen him stand up to Bush over the years making other republicans angry with him but he stood his ground. I do wish he would not agree now with Bush on the tax breaks for the rich. Washington insider...just a label for anyone who has been in Washington over 10 years in my opinion. Doesn't bother me. Ethically challenged/hypocritical..I will have to watch and see but no I don't see John this way.
On the good....what do I agree with Mark on and what I don't.
McCain..War hero...yes...Maverick...yes...Funny and affable...yes...Able to nurture and benefit from bipartisan relationships...yes....Media-friendly (popular with the press/charming on talk shows and comedy programs)....yes...Accessible and relatable....yes.
Obama..Charismatic/inspiring/handsome..no..no..no..Unifying (with a broad appeal to Democrats, Republicans, and independents, and a personified promise to the rest of the world)...no...see this..A Surprise About Obama, Clinton, and Turnout
Conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama's primary victories are based on his ability to increase turnout.
A look at what happens when voter turnout increases in the primaries proves that this notion is wrong. In fact, Obama has had his greatest primary (and caucus) victories when turnouts have been low.
Obama received 66% of the primary vote in Georgia when 22.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Virginia, Obama received 64% of the primary vote when 21.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Mississippi, Obama received 61% of the primary vote when 24.4% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary.
Hillary Clinton received 67% of the primary vote in West Virginia when 30.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Pennsylvania, Clinton received 55% of the vote when 27.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Ohio, Clinton received 54% of the primary vote when 30.5% of all registered voters in the state voted in the primary.
There are exceptions (such as Arkansas, Tennessee, and Rhode Island), but Clinton, and not Obama, tends to win in the states where turnouts are higher. The relationship is strong enough that Democratic primary turnout can be predicted using Clinton's share of the vote.
Representative of change (forward-looking/peace advocating) ...no...I do not believe Obama has enough experience to bring this kind of change....Healing/post-racial...see my post here...no..Eloquent....no...not in my opinion....Brilliant....Hell NO!
Prof of Obama's inexperience...
Hanford question stumps Obama
But candidate says he will learn about cleanup