And the corporate media usually seems to be easier on CReeps (eg Bush v. Kerry, Bush v. Gore). That's why it's our duty to expose McCain's dirty flip-flopping record and hold the media accountable for continuing this "maverick" myth.

Are you suggesting I say this to all my Reep family members to get them to stay home or vote Bob Barr? Well, I guess it's worth a try. The fewer votes for McBush, the better. ;-)

Prepare to be troll rated for what you said, but I totally agree - Obama's position on SS seems to be very poorly thought out.

Raising the "cap" while the system is still in surplus may seem like a good idea on the surface, but really it is taking the back road to privatization. I take Obama at his word that he is against privatization on principle, but his demogoguery on the "cap" issue is troubling.

To see what will happen if you lift the "cap", you just split SS payers into 3 groups.

1) Middle and lower income folks, who will pay no more in than they do now, and get no additional benefit.

2) Upper income professionals, who earn most of their income from wages. They will pay a lot more, and get no additional benefit. They will start demanding a way to get more equitable treatment from the system - that is, private accounts.

3) Very high income folks, who already get most of their income from non-wage sources, and can easily arrange to have their wage income shifted to investment income. These people will also wind up paying no more than they do now.

With the cap, groups 1,2,3 respectively, care a lot, care a little, and care not at all about preserving SS. Without the cap, the groups care a lot, negatively care a lot, and care not at all. Raising the cap is a long term political loser - that is why FDR's smart planners put the cap in the system in the first place.

This is why I was never an Obama supporter in the primaries - Leibman is a co-author with Martin Feldstein who has been jonesing to destroy Social Security for 40 years or more.  However, the more Obama goes on the record opposing privatization, the more boxed in he'll be, I hope, if he's elected.  And Democrats in Congress, like Pelosi who stopped this crap cold in 2005, I hope will stop it again.

McCain was on this again this morning, I think, saying oh no, he's not for privatization, but what he's for is some private accounts for young people.  And then he said he'd guarantee benefits for "current retirees" - very generous of you, John.  He talked about the parties getting together, like Tip O'Neill and Ronal Reagan in 1983 - well, I was there, I worked on it, and Reagan got his ass handed to him on Social Security both before and during the 1983 Amendments.  He was STILL saying privately, to members of Congress of both parties, right up to the signing of the 1983 Amendments that, "You know, we really do have to get rid of this program."  I don't know why the elderly don't get it that Republicans CANNOT be trusted on Social Security.  Period.

McCain's continuing support for privatization  makes a great attack ad point, I agree - and I hope using it against McCain stops Leibman and other of Obama's advisors (like Goolsbee) from bringing it up again in any context.

Lets definately show the contrast, but I wish you would stop that "For it before he was against it wording..."  That was a terrible statement by KERRY himself.  Lets not use thos ewords that helped get bush Term 2.