McCain is going to be the next President. Although people will vehemently deny it in public, middle America still has ingrained racism that will prevent them from voting for an African-America President.

When it comes time to cast their ballot, they will be convinced by the Republican media machine that Obama is too liberal and too soft on terrorism, which combined with his being an African American will dissuade them from voting for him.

I don't know but his wife is a busty blond with a beer distributorship. This has got to count for something.

McCain is definitely going to be the next President. The bottom line is that Obama is too liberal and too polarizing of a figure to have a real shot at becoming the next President. While the younger generation (myself included) will push for Obama and most of what you read on the Internet will support Obama, I don't think there's any way he's going to get elected. Check out his voting record, there's no way that "Middle America" (who essentially decide the election) is going to go for him.

Jeeessssuuusss you're an idiot.

Bush was elected, and it is clear that he, too, did not have his facts straight. I don't think that negative propaganda can be used to illustrate who is going to win an election, especially when past elections have not followed the trend of electing the "smartest" candidate, for lack of a better term.

you cant be serious?? there isnt any traces of racism in this campaign correct?? have you seen the footage from west virginia and all the other cracker jack towns where the tobacco chewing shit kickin rednecks let their sentiments be heard?? yeah racism never existed and we all love each other?? wake up brother and be honest about this sad reality you people try to deny

Please note that the source you used cites a 4% error margin. Notice that within this margin, McCain could be placed ahead of Obama. The article itself cites an update that notes this, and also notes that the claim that Obama gained popularity versus McCain across the past few months may be inaccurate, as it is within the margin of error. Also, the poll used only just over 1,000 individuals, I would hardly call that a comprehensive poll of America. Your evidence is clearly lacking.

I think that this is true to a certain extent. I believe that McCain will be the next President and I am sure that there are some people that will vote for him out of racism towards Obama. This is very sad. The real reason that people should vote for him is that he has the experience to run a nation.

I like Barack Obama, and in a few more years I would probably vote for him. However, at this point in time I do not believe that he has the necessary experience to be President of the United States. He is a junior senator from Illinois. That is not enough experience!

The only thing you say in this paragraph is that Obama has energy, [is a?] fresh breath, and winning spirit. You then continue to call McCain weak, without any evidence. How can you call McCain weak when he was winning over Obama only a few months ago in polls (http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/ tables/live/2008-01-13-poll3.htm)? Also, how can you claim that defeating Clinton was the "greatest challenge"? I am sure that you are aware that half of the country did not vote in this election. Without such a substantial number of voters, nobody ought to claim that this was his greatest challenge. I am also appalled that you would claim his defeat of Clinton was done "with ease". Clinton still has not even admitted defeat, claims to own the popular vote, and is still fighting. I think that this argument has no basis, and that if you had to vote on this statement alone you should choose McCain.

I don't think that your argument is accurate. If everyone in Arizona "loathes" him, why does he keep winning reelection. Your argument needs to be reevaluated.

It's not a question of who is "on the fence." This election will come down to who can control a majority of the larger states. If Obama cannot unite the democratic party (which he has not proved he is capable of), he will not win the traditionally Democratic states come November. Many of those who are "on the fence" are upper middle class whites, who might even tend to support McCain's moderate economic policies. Finally, Americans, with help from the pundits, will see through Obama's glowing rhetoric and dazzling speeches and will understand that Obama is a candidate of ideals, dreams, hope, ambition; but he is not a candidate of realities.

The source is useless, that is my point.

The only other thing that you said in the initial paragraph were opinions backed by no sources. I think that most would agree with what you said, but it is undebatable if you just voice opinions. That should be a popularity contest on this site.

lmao

"As we embark on the future the world will change in ways we have never seen before"

Well no shit, Sherlock. That's the keen thing about the future, you know. We can't see it.

Your opinion sounds all poetic and nice (kinda like a vacation ad), but that's all it is. Fluff. Where's the beef?

Has there ever been a presidential candidate who hasn't promised change in some way. You act like you've never heard these words before. It's a slogan, a catchphrase. You'd think people were choosing their favorite soft drink or something. I guess that's about all the depth the consumerist mindset will allow.

Republicans aren't unified? That's the pot calling the kettle black. Have you looked at the recent news? Clinton basically lost months ago, but is she pulling out? No way! There is essentially no hope for her, but does she really care? She has split the democrats cleanly in two, and you claim that the Republicans aren't unified? At least they have a clear idea of who is running! Instead, all Clinton can do is smear the Obama camp, which merely damages the Democrats as a whole.

Let's face it, Barack Obama is a leftist, and the fact is, you do not win an election based upon catering exclusively to the base of your party. The base of a party is just that, the base, those who are already committed to vote on one side, therefore, what wins an election is not a candidate's strength in the party's foundation values, but their ability to capture the majority of the nation's moderates. Quite frankly, John McCain is in the best position to do this.

And you think Obama plans to change Americas war-mongering? I agree with most of what you said, but we need someone who not only talks about change, but about what kind and how.

Ron Paul ftw.

I actually don't think we can decide this until they choose their running mates. That will determine the race, hands down. However, as much as I think we need a change in the White House, I think that McCain is liberal enough of a Republican to be elected. Obama is too polarizing and too liberal for the majority of the country. McCain is much more of a uniting figure in terms of policy and political stance. I guess I choose McCain as well since I am terrified of the depression this country will be headed into if Obama is elected and taxes us all to death.

I don't think that Obama can rally the Democratic party let alone the country behind him. On the other hand McCain has the full support of the Republican party and a sizable following even with moderates. Obama seems to think that the world is a Utopia where everyone is really nice at heart and all wars could be avoided if we just talked more. The world that Obama describes in his speeches is not the world that actually exists and this more than anything else is going to discourage many voters.

I find it interesting that what you list as weaknesses I would tally as advantages for McCain. (Currently) we can put Iraq in the plus column, showing that even though it was difficult, as long as you persevere, things can improve. Also, the economy is only bad if you just compare it to the previous highs of the unusual American prosperity. We are still well above average globally.

My own argument fails, however, because I don't think this will be an issues campaign, but one just about personalities...

I don't know but I'm sure it'll be one of these two guys. More than likely the one that gets the most votes.

I think McCain will win - this race really comes down to demographics and the fact that anti-war candidates don't get elected

Have you already forgotten about what Watson said:

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/ T2MIUT2S873T21DA4

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2007/10/19/ james-watson-black-intelligence-and-new- research-by-fryer-and-levitt/

I'd love to believe that's true, but unfortunately I think that perspective only applies to a section of American society, the one young, internet-savvy Americans are most exposed to. I'm doubtful that 'middle America' see it that way.

So do you constantly repeat vacuous nonsensical comments constantly on this site just to raise the number by your name?

Methinks you misunderstood the scoring system.

mmm, but then Bush got in a second term.... so maybe people dont care? And really, alot of that video is edited to the point that it seems incontextual, so yeah. Susity much.

I'm pretty sure (and hoping) McCain will be our next president. God help us all if Obama wins!

Correct!

B. Clinton platform was change. Why do people see Obama's change as some sort of different chan than Clinton ran on.

And Clinton was younger when he took office than Obama

Tell me Joe, did you post all of these inane comments because a) you're an idiot, b) you thought it was funny, or c) a deliberate attempt to skew this debate toward the McCain side?

My money's on all of the above :)

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Obama is scary . . way too many unknowns about him. He could be the antiChrist for all I know. At least with McCain, you know what you're getting. If McCain doesn't get someone like Huck as a VP, I might vote "none of the above."

Does anyone REALLY believe that the party of slavery and segregation, the party of the KKK and lynching, the party of black codes and Jim Crow, the party that fought every piece of civil rights legislation from 1865 through 1965 is going to be the first to put a black man in the White House? The Democrats still have a former KKK Exalted Cyclops sitting in the Senate. The highest position a black has ever achieved in a Democrat administration is commerce secretary, and Ron Brown didn't live to tell about it.

i really don't think americans are retarded enough to actually vote for obama... but then again, we ended up having to choose between bush and gore and then bush and kerry.

seriously, how the fuck can people be so moronic to come up with choices like that?

McCain is long past overdue. we should have had him after the first Bush (instead of clinton and his civilian bombing, nuclear secret selling ass).

i just miss the Huckabee/Colbert thing. that would have been awesome.

You seem to have a very selective memory on what MLK Jr. said. Either that or you just don't know. He said a lot more than "I have a dream..." and most of it was pretty fucking harsh and about Vietnam. The government was after his ass a lot even letting the FBI follow him and bug his phone and rooms. Thats how we know he screwed around on his wife so much. Not sayin the guy was evil, but the picture the national narrative has painted you is false. He was a real guy with real faults and sounded more like Jerimiah Wright than you want to believe. Please pick up a book or use "The Google" every once and a while.

Obama's a great public speaker and he seems like a good leader to anyone listening to one of his public addresses....but I'm not sure people really know where he stands on a lot of issues. He wants change which we all agree is probably a good thing, but do we really know what he means by change? I don't.

Honestly I really have no desire to see either man in office....I'd vote for Obama if I knew what his views were a little more clearly. He seems like a very powerful public speaker but I'm not sure what kind of leader he can really be. By the way, can I get a definition of the word Susity?

John Edwards lied about the cost of his haircuts. Fred Thompson lied about lobbying for a pro-choice outfit. John McCain insists that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation." Mitt Romney concocted the story about how his father marched with Martin Luther King Jr. And Rudy Giuliani is one-man fib machine -- everything from why he had to provide police protection for his then-mistress to the cure rates for prostate cancer in Britain. Yet it is something Barack Obama said that bothers me most of all because Obama is a new kind of politician. He is supposed to be coolly authentic.

What concerns me is the lie or fib or misstatement -- call it what you want -- that involves Obama's assertion that more young black males are in prison than in college. It is a shocking statistic -- and it is wrong. But when The Washington Post's lonesome but formidable truth squad, Michael Dobbs, brought this to the attention of the Obama campaign, he not only got the brush-off but the assertion was later repeated.

You can appreciate the usefulness of this false claim. It says something compelling about the plight of young, black males that is essentially true -- their condition amounts to a calamity and something has to be done. But this particular comparison is wrong, and Obama must know it by now. Ought to be true is not the same as true.

After all, it ought to be true that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It ought to be true that he had ties with Osama bin Laden. It ought to be true that aluminum tubes were intended for a nuclear weapons program and it ought to be true, really, that none of this mattered since what mattered most of all was a larger truth: Saddam had to go and the Middle East had to be urban renewed for the sake of democracy.

In a recent provocative essay for The New Republic's Web site, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz coined the phrase "the delusional style in American punditry." He applied it to Obama's fans in the American press. His argument is that certain journalists are so enthralled by the sheer Obamaness of Obama that they are willing to overlook everything they know about the fundamental value of experience.

In this regard, Wilentz cites a Boston Globe editorial that used Obama's memoir "Dreams From My Father" to extol Obama's real-life experiences. Wilentz is not persuaded. To him, the book is "not exactly a portrait of sterling honesty or authenticity."

I and others have written that Obama -- as he himself says in the introduction -- invented composite characters and altered chronology. But as The Chicago Tribune also reported, some of the events Obama passionately details seem not to have happened at all. Maybe his memory played tricks on him. Mine sure does.

But I am not running for president. And if I were, I'd pay particular attention to the truth -- to the nagging facts that sometimes get in the way of a good story. After all, it is not only Iraq that has been destroyed in the last several years -- so has whatever trust the American people still had in their government. I have been at this game a long time, but for sheer manipulation of the facts, for a fudging of the truth, for the occasional bald lie, the Bush administration takes the cake. Cheney and truth cannot be found in the same sentence.

So the cavalier dismissal of Dobbs, the Post's truth-hunter, is troubling. Since he writes that the Obama campaign would not comment, it is reasonable to assume that it doesn't give a damn -- that this is a little matter and the candidate is engaged in something grand. The phony statistic is, in its way, like a composite. There's a larger truth here, get it?

No. When John McCain sticks to his insistence that the Constitution established the United States as a "Christian nation," I don't like it, but I know McCain and I know his character. He has a record in public life going back, essentially, to 1967 when he was shot down over Vietnam and repeatedly tortured by his captors. Back in 2000, I might have gotten a bit "delusional" over him, but I had my reasons.

I am a bit enamored with Obama as well. But the man's public record is thin and the glow from him is distracting and my intuition tells me that sometimes intuition is no substitute for experience. So, I'll sit back and watch some more -- and wait to see if Obama or anyone in his campaign calls back Dobbs and corrects the record. "Facts are stubborn things," John Adams once said. So, to our regret, we keep learning the hard way.

Thats why McCain will win!

The Libs are trying to get McCain to bash Pres Bush. That would be a bad move on his

part. We solid supporters of Pres Bush would drop out & I think there are thousands

of us that KNOW history will prove him to be one of our best presidents. What has

Obama got to offer? RHETORIC! He could go to the middle to get elected, as Dems

do historically & then switch back to his real self- whatever that is. This frightens me

more than anything about this unknown.

McCain. America is too stupid to realize how much of a danger he is. He almost failed University! http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=srbX26vp57c <- here he says it himself.

This is ridiculous.