Hi Gang:

By the time Hillary and Obama quit beating each other up,neither will have enough money left in their war chests to run a good race against Mc Cain.

Mc Cain could possibly win by simply outspending the eventual Democrat nominee.

Although I still don't see how McCain can win with his stance on the war.

If it's true that 60 to 75% of American voters are against the war,how can McCain possibly win???

hippolips

As of about 10 days ago, only 17% of Obama's donors had given the maximum. He can keep tapping supporters for more, with new ones seeming to join the Obama party all the time. His war chest can fill up again, it seems.

Of all presidential elections in recent recollection, this one is for me the LEAST of the 'lesser of two evils' dilemma. I think either Obama or Clinton are capable, intelligent, articulate, and up to the job, and actually I would be delighted if either became president (ask me again 6 months later).

As for McCain: I actually voted for him in the 2000 primary, mainly to vote against W, though by then I had seen the errors of my ways and become a liberal. (That's what moving to the Bible Belt did for me.) I'm a little surprised at how McCain's sold out some of his views this time around (100 more years in Iraq? We are a Christian nation? Since when was he such a hawk or evangelical?), but he's still the sanest of the Republican field.

Too bad W ruined it for Republican party by so thoroughly laying waste to the US. Even if the Democrats nominate a potted palm tree for president, it gets my vote in November 2008!

Really everybody wins: No matter who is sworn in January 20, 2009, it won't be George W. Bush.

Fair enough, Professor.

But I don't get this whole notion of McCain "selling out." He has been selling out for a long time, and as much as admitted so when his campaign started. No more of that - this was to be the "Straight Talk Express." Democrats used to admit to liking McCain, even saying they would vote for him! Now that he is the apparent opponent, he is a "sell out!"

As for McCain's changing positions...I believe the old term is called "flip-flopping". Or at least when it was applied to previous Democrat candidates.

There's no doubt that McCain has been pandering to Christian evangelicals and other voting blocs he formerly didn't cozy up to. Some of that is, of course, politics as usual -- all politicians are chameleons & nobody is more desperate for votes than a Republican presidential front runner.

After looking a little deeper I think I mistakenly assumed that McCain was more moderate, centrist, progressive -- ok, more liberal -- than I now realize he actually is. Somehow he just seemed like a much more credible candidate 8 years ago -- and that's ignoring the age issue.

Meanwhile Republicans everywhere are trying to convince themselves that McCain is conservative enough to be their man. It'll be interesting to watch McCain squirm and dance as November approaches.

It just might be August that McCain has to worry about. Things are starting to surface...and re-surface.

LOL DG. I guess that's what happens when you are "the candidate with experience."

I hope you are not implying that the innuendo-filled fact vacancy of an article published by the nation's new tabloid, the New York TImes, was good journalism. Don't know why they possibly published it, when they were working on this story before endorsing McCain last month. Hmmmmmmmmmmm...

Two other media sources have uncovered information that backs up the facts in the NYTimes story. McCain is now denying that he met with a man that he previously said, under oath, that he met with. Does anyone really believe he forgot about his testimony in a hearing about his own dealings with lobbyists and possible conflicts of interest? I am not certain, but I think the general public is about to learn a great deal more about Straight Talking Honest John, and I don't think it is going to be pretty.

Well, Huckabee did say he believed in miracles.

When McCain started calling his campaign the "Straight Talk Express" I knew we were about to hear a bunch of garbage!

I'm not terribly fond of McCain, and I wouldn't put an indiscretion out of reach of any politician, but the facts of the Times article seem to be weak. The facts, as I understand them, are that McCain has not been accused of breaking any laws; that he has not been accused of having an affair; that the sources are unknown to the reader; that other campaign workers were contacted and were not aware of any inappropriate behavior but were pressed to say that there was some; that the lobbying by the woman was not particularly successful; and that the Times endorsed McCain last month, when the article was already in the works.

The behavior of the New York Times seems as fishy as what McCain is being accused of.

But who knows. Gary Hart must be feeling for the guy right about now.

At first, McCain's people denied that the meeting between the campaign manager and the lobbyist took place. Then, a man described as "McCain's former top political adviser, John Weaver", now employed elsewhere, acknowledged the meeting, as did the lobbyist. As previously stated, McCain denied speaking to the head of the telecommunications (I think) company. Now, another publication has found McCain's sworn testimony in which he definitely states that he talked to the man. The testimony came in an investigation into McCain's frequent use of a company jet, a company which was regulated by McCain's committee. McCain even admitted, again, under oath, that his actions gave the appearance of impropriety. Interesting, is it not, from a man who champions campaign reform?

Fuse, I have not repeated rumors or innuendo about McCain. even though it permeates this story, and will probably come out and be vetted sooner rater than later. I am just pointing out that McCain and his people have denied things that were almost immediately shown to be true. That makes him 0 for 2 in the credibility department concerning this story. I remind you that the Whitewater investigation showed nothing illegal about the Clintons' involvement in that real estate deal, yet resulted in an impeachment (and a taxpayer bill of at least $40+ million).

This may make Romney look very very smart for "suspending" his campaign instead of ending it. (Has anyones else ever "suspended" his campaign like that?)

A Hole in McCain’s Defense?

A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK.

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue—an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named—"I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"—even though McCain denied doing anything improper.

McCain's subsequent letters to the FCC—coming around the same time that Paxson's firm was flying the senator to campaign events aboard its corporate jet and contributing $20,000 to his campaign—first surfaced as an issue during his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. William Kennard, the FCC chair at the time, described the sharply worded letters from McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, as "highly unusual."

The deposition that McCain gave came in the course of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of his landmark campaign finance reform law, known as McCain-Feingold. The suit sheds no new light on the nature of the senator's dealings with Iseman, but it does include a lengthy discussion of his dealings with the company that hired her, including some statements by the senator that could raise additional questions for his campaign.

In the deposition, noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams (who was representing the lawsuit's lead plaintiff, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell) grilled McCain about the four trips he took aboard Paxson's corporate jet to campaign events and the $20,000 in campaign contributions he had received from the company's executives during the period the firm was pressing him to intervene with federal regulators.

At another point Abrams asked McCain if, "looking back on the events with Mr. Paxson, the contributions, the jets, everything you and I have just talked about, do you believe that it would have been justified for a member of the public to say there is at least an appearance of corruption here?"

"Absolutely," McCain replied. "And when I took a thousand dollars or any other hard-money contribution from anybody who does business before the Congress of the United States, then that allegation is justified as well. Because the taint affects all of us." Elsewhere McCain said about his dealings with Paxson, "As I said before, I believe that there could possibly be an appearance of corruption because this system has tainted all of us."

In his deposition McCain got the opportunity to emphasize some of the same points his campaign made in 2000 and again this week about his letters to the FCC at Paxson's behest: that he never pressed the agency to rule in Paxson's favor, only to make a decision one way or another.

But despite McCain's own somewhat detailed descriptions of his conversations with Paxson about the matter in the deposition, his campaign Thursday night stuck with its original statement that the senator never discussed the issue at all with the communications executive or his lobbyist. - Newswek

The article even quotes McCain's description of the conversation with the head of the company.

McCain: "I'm sure I spoke with him, yes."

I stopped a little at "suspended," too.

I really wish Romney had come out as the centrist that he really is with the good executive background. He could have been formidable but wasn't firing right on one cylinder. That was the one where he listened to somebody who said he should position himself as a conservative. Buncha bull. I think we lost a potentially good choice.

I mean, there must be something to a Republican who gets elected Governor of Massachusetts. And it wasn't because of his right wing views!

Might be time to unsuspend himself.

If Romney's going to start campaigning again, he'd better let his sons know ASAP - they might be signing up even as we type.

I feel that Mitt Romney's biggest hurdle was his religion, being a Morman. Which is a shame. Yet what many voters overlook is the fact that when it comes to business, the Mormans have a good track record. And I feel Mitt Romney would have brought a good economic program, had he eventually gotten elected.

Sure would be nice to find someone running for office who believed in his/her own abilities.