…

How does everyone think that has worked out for our country?

If you think Republicans have performed poorly in control the executive branch, why would you vote for them to retain control of the executive branch?

That's why your assessment of my position as to why I would rather see a divided house is inaccurate.

As to Obama's choice, I felt it was the best and most logical he could make. Obama had to, after all, engage in outreach to those who don't put “change” at the top of their wish list but want to ensure power in Washington is as fully able to get what they want as can be had. Plus Biden's foreign-policy expertise counterbalances his pro-war vote, which after was was the great majority's. We'll just have to see if this choice achieves the goal of unity that was one of Obama's.

* * *

Separate issue: One other thing I thought of was that Obama faces Clinton voters who aren't sold on Obama, some of which are expected to vote for McCain. But just as the Religious Right is vastly exaggerated in the hearts and minds of many, so may be the fraction of the Dem uncommitted and certainly the risk that they'll defect to McCain. Both groups are likely to be feared much too much.

The problem with your claim of one party holding the White House and a Congressional majority is you apparently view the people doing so as completely interchangeable. I don't care that much for Reid or Pelosi but I'm not about to say that they are just the same as as Delay and Frist. In additiion there is no way I'm about to compare Obama and Biden to Bush and Cheney. The actual people involved and their goals, beliefs and policies do matter. I'm getting very tired of the simplistic mindset that insists that this isn't so, that all politicians are the exact same regardless of party, etc. It reminds me of Nader's claim that there is no difference between the parties and we've seen how well that prediction panned out for the last 8 years.

I'm not all that worried about it happening, though. I believe the Dems will pick up more seats in the Senate, but nine looks like an awfully lofty goal, and those predicting a blowout victory for Obama may be counting chickens before beaks are visible. I agree that he *should* be winning this thing, but particularly with this weekend's events, it looks as if he's really trying his hardest to hand it back to McCain.

*** DON'T GET OVERCONFIDENT OR DELUSIONAL ABOUT AMERICAN VIEWS ***

You're absolutely right, Steve K. The 1996 elections were not only Thumbs Down on current foreign policy (the screwed-up occupation of Iraq, namely) but also on the Congressional GOP. I retain my view that this is still the sentiment held by most Americans. So long as the GOP (not only McCain) doesn't offer a positive and an attractive alternative to the Dems, there's no reason not to expect the Dems to do even better than in 2006.

* Will Obama beat McCain by at least 62-38?

* Will the Dems get 60+ per cent in the Senate? (House is a big bonus.)

* Will the Dems also do well in state & local elections?

Steve I do remember many votes to fund the war that the democrats could have easily blocked. There were no filibusters on those votes. Up or down vote. Fund the war or dont fund the war.

They chose to fund it. They should have voted to not fund it. They were voted into office to end the war. How do you end the war if you keep funding the war and keep it going? You don't. Thus Americans are concluding……..Democrats want the war to go badly so they can run on ending the war with more deceitful tactics.

As for Bush. There is no doubt that he is not popular. That however is a result of the war on terror which has totally absorbed this nation and taken from it the will and the desire to do things to strengthen our nation and our peoples.

Immigration………….Harry Reid said “One more vote and if we cant get a bill then I will table the bill so we can go back to passing more resolutions on Iraq.”

Drilling………Nanny Pelosi says she will not bring a vote on drilling up for consideration even though the people are demanding it.

I could go on but the fact of the matter is that never in the history of America has politics become so polarized on both sides for the pure SPITE of it.

Remember I am not only anti Iraq but anti Afghanistan as well. But I am tired of the lies from BOTH sides.

I do not share Superdestroyer's imminent doom predicted for the GOP, but Obama just increased the load on poor John-Boy, whose VP choice will now be compared and evaluated relative to Obama's as well as on its own merits and it can be easily excused if some begin playing funeral dirges for McCain and the GOP somewhat early for a while as they react to Obama's choice.

My mistake… Now how about replying on the first and second points I made in response to your “Simple Facts” comment.

There was hardly time for lies to spread or for Bush to rig the evidence.

1 – It was impossible for the Democrats with a razor slim margin in the Senate to do anything… the Republican minority stifled everything we tried with filibusters (anyone remember the “Nuclear Option” the wingnuts threatened the Democrats with when the tables were turned?) and other procedural hanky-pank.

2 – The electorate (both left and right) are angry at congress for not following the will of the people… If you subtract the 18% 'I'll never change my mind' Neocons you'll see that Bushes approval borders in single digit territory.

3 – The congress voted 537 to 1… blah… blah… blah… Sure they did Neocon but their votes were based on the lies told them by the Bush Administration. Get real.

Congress voted 537 to 1 to give Bush the authority to hunt down and kill terrorists no matter where they lived and the democrats simply turned this around and lied willy nilly to get power.

The people are getting wise to their obstructionist ways and I think your seeing it in numbers that should have Obama leading by 25. Instead we are tied. Now the DNC is stepping in and making Obama choose an insider so they can continue to have power over a Maverick Obama.

Power begits power and Obama's cute message of change is over. Its now time to get serious so lets pull in the big DC Insider gun and get er dun.

I will say again that Biden would have been a good choice for Hillary. The old guarde, lunchbucket Democrats. Its obvious that he wants to connect with those voters that Hillary connected with, without adding Hillary to the ticket.

Its a gamble, We shall see. if Obama's ratings go up 10 points in the next couple days then he landed a coup by reclaiming Hillary disaffected voters. if not hes in serious trouble.

Simply put watch for McCains numbers to drop by 4 percent and Obamas go go up by about 4 percent thus giving him a 10 point lead. This will be the Puma types rejoining the Obama/Democrats. There is no doubt this choice was a desperate or smart choice for going after Clinton/Puma voters.

I heard about it this morning, and reacted: “Foolproof choice. The strongest candidate, takes care of foreign policy, exploits Iraq. The Obama campaign has gotten back on its feet.”

Neocon: If those who had clout in the 1990s still have any, the DNC's model choice would have been Evan Bayh, in my view. Note that he had strong negatives among the libs and Dems, notably among Obama's core people (white “progressives”). Bayh logically would have been the DNC's choice even more than Clinton would be.

Clinton would have been a utilitarian choice, namely to lasso those uncommitted Clinton voters, one-fifth of whom threaten to defect to McCain. Obama apparently felt it was worth that risk to seek stronger support in other ways; besides, how many Clinton voters _really_ will vote for McCain and by extension the GOP when they have the chance to carry the Dems to even better accomplishments in November?

Biden's rep for odd statements here and there may or may not become an issue; was is going to be revealing is if we stop hearing Concerns and Fears about McCain's Temper (as well as an end to stupid ageist remarks). (The hypocrisy of the Change [tm] people choosing an insider and DC fixture is not a big issue; Dems are known for being hypocritical and the issue should be framed entirely differently, anyway. Biden has much to offer and was the intellectuals' preference for President, don't forget.)

“the TKO the Democrats have just given themselves”

On the contrary, Obama first had to avoid making a bad choice, which he did. His choice of Biden may not be claimed to be a knockout of a success, but libs and Dems can be ebullient right now (something else that was part of my reaction this morning). If not a knockout, Dems get to smile with confidence with this choice.

We can expect the liberal media to gloat over this choice. I wonder how they'll view McCain's eventual choice. (Does anyone in lefty-land really care?)

I agree, to quote Porky Pig… “That's all Folks”

The fall campaign will be centered on distraction and innuendo.

I realize this point has already been made here, but honestly.

The spring was full of complaints about somebody's middle name.

The summer has been full of comparisons to Paris Hilton.

And now the autumn of distraction and innuendo is going to be the fault of Joe Biden?

We have been led by Republicans for eight years.

No one will defend the performance of Republicans.

What else do Republicans have to run on if not distraction and innuendo?

You do realize that
a) Biden was required to file for the Senate many months ago, and
b) It is common for the VP to run for Senate too (Lieberman did it).

Also, Biden may have been like the old McCain – the maverick one. But Biden is perfectly positioned to say, “I used to like McCain before he sold out to Rove and Bush.”