This was first posted on Campaign Diaries.

John McCain has long benefited from the conventional wisdom that he is uncumfortable invoking his years in Vietnam and as a POW on the campaign trail. But back in December, McCain's decision to air an ad in New Hampshire devoted to his experience as a POW suggested that Vietnam could play more central a role than McCain would like us to believe. (As a side note, it is really worth rereading the late December post I wrote at the time as it is a fascinating reminder of just how late McCain surged and just how chaotic the GOP race was just two weeks before Iowa.)

In the article "How John McCain will End the War", it becomes clear that his choice of policies are not well-thought out and contradictory.  McCain is both acting on his own ideology and advocating policies that he thinks will appeal to his constituency.  Whether they make any sense seems to be irrelevant.

This "shifting to the center" meme is a right-wing smear to define BO as a flip-flopper.  Barack Obama has always held these positions.  Check the records; Read Audacity of Hope; Please check your issues.  BO did not shift to the center as many right-wing pundits are claiming. The followings are positions that BO has held for as long as we've known him:

On NAFTA - No change, BO is and has been a free-trader all along but wanted trade-deals with labor standards to protect American workers.

On Guns - BO has always supported the right to bear arm as contained in 2nd Amendment (that's why he won Idaho, Colorado, etc. in the primary)

On Abortion - his current position has always been his position (that's why they EMILY's list attacked him in New Hampshire).

On Death Penalty - Go and check BO's Illinois record, where he led the reform there not to ban death penalty but to ensure a transparent and judicious death penalty system.

On Faith Based initiatives - Read Audacity of Hope.  This has been BO's position all along.

On Iraq -  BO has always had this "one or two brigade a month withdrawal" for a 16 months timeline in consultation with Commanders on the ground.

So in conclusion, I give it to the Republican for having succeeded in fooling the Democrats and the Press to embrace their talking point.   They wanted to define BO as a flip-flopper the way they did against John Kerry.  Ask yourself, why were the Press and McCain campaign so fast to twist BO's reiteration of his Iraq position?  And this is the same position he's held since the first day he came up with "one or two brigade a month withdrawal" for a 16 months timeline.  Same position from September of 2007

So wake up folks; read your copy of Audacity of Hope; check BO's records to see that he's a pragmatic left-of-the-center democrat.

So I was reading over some of Marc Ambinder's posts from June and came across a report that some McCain insiders believe they will NEVER be ahead of Obama in the popular vote and yet win the election (emphasis made by Ambinder).  This thought process jives with Rick Davis's earlier statement to the effect that Obama's strategy was not one to win the general election and statements by other Republicans from traditionally red states laughing at the notion that Obama could turn their states blue.  In other words, McCain's camp doesn't seem to have much respect for the "50 state strategy" as a general election strategy as it is more designed to win the popular vote, rather than the electoral college.

Unfortunately, I think there is some merit to the claims allegeldy made public or in secret by McCain insiders.  I'd place the chances of Obama winning the popular vote at around 80% right now given his outstanding organization; however, I'd place his chances right now of winning the general election at 55%.  Why so much lower?

If you look at the Rasmussen state polls, Obama is running up outrageous margins in the Northeast, Illinois, California, Minnesota and the Pacific Northwest as McCain is not within single digts, and in some cases not even within twenty points, in any of these states.  Obama is also performing significantly better than previous Dems in the red states where he performed well in the primaries, though he is losing by the same margin as other non-Southern Dems in the red states won by Hillary Clinton).  Why the "concern?"

The concern lies with the fact that he's up only five, when the lead should be much greater given Obama's overperformance in the tradionally blue and red states.  What that indicates to me, and I could very well be wrong, is that he's underperforming, relative to his performance in the tradionally blue and red states, in the "swing" states, which accounts for why his lead is smaller than what it should be at this point.

People will argue that the benefit of the 50-state strategy is that McCain will be stretched out in terms of how much defense he will have to play.  McCain's camp likely disagrees; Schmidt and company probably believe that they can keep red states such as North Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, North Dakota, Alaska, and Montana red with little to no defense as such states are so red, conservative, and stocked with Republicans that no matter how much time and money Obama invests in these states, they will stay red by 3-5 points regardless.  As you know, losing by 3-5 counts the same as losing by double digits in the electoral college.  To win even one of these states, Obama would need a 15-20 point swing, something that the McCain camp and some pubs likely find impossible.  Thus, the number of states that McCain actually feels he has to defend vigorously may be close to the same number of states that Bush had to vigorously defend in 2004.  The map may not have changed too much after all.

Without a doubt, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada are true swing states and the McCain camp has acknowleged this reality.  Obama should already have Iowa and New Mexico in the bag because they were Gore states in 2000.  It's tough to get a handle on what either camp thinks about Florida and Missouri.

In conclusion, I'm not thrilled about Obama's 50-state strategy not because he's trying to turn really, really red states blue but rather, he's leaving out states that were staples to Big Daddy's big electoral college victories in 1992 and 1996: LA, AR, WV, and KY.  Jay Cost has a great article on why it's dangerous to write off these states because of the dramatic regisration advantage that Dems have over pubs in these four states. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2008/07/obamas_chicago_campaign.h tml.

Anyway, if Obama's VP choice didn't matter, I am predicting a 49.5-44 popular vote victory and a 306-232 electoral college victory.  If the popular vote win for Obama is "only" 48.5-46 on election night, I expect we'll be in a similar place to where were four years ago: at 264 electoral college votes, down 50,000 in Ohio, waiting to see if we got the necessary turnout in Cleveland.

First. To MeganLocke and others who read this diary:

Hope you had a great weekend and Happy Monday!

Yes, I know, I'm supposed to be fishing. I should be on the beach but I made the mistake of listening to the Sunday "spin cycle". Then I read comments to my post here at myDD.

One pissed me off and the other got me thinking and well...

I was reading another diary about picking the Vice Presidential candidates. You may see the first part of this diary in the comment section elsewhere in myDD. I'm greatful to MeganLocke for reminding me of the subjective part of picking a VP. Her reminder caused me to reexamine my own thoughts of the process. This diary, that started out as a comment, is a result. This is a comparison between two women for the office of VP. They are Gov. Sebeliius of Kansas and Sen. Clinton of New York.

On the point of choosing a VP, I like the fact that reasonable people can peacefully disagree. Nice.

With Sen. Obama's recent shift to a campaign that looks more and more like a Sen. Clinton primary? To skip over Sen. Clinton for a 2nd tier option? He'd have to hate the woman's guts to skip her now. How do you explain it?

Before you read my opinion after the bump, there's something I'd like for you to consider.

You see something troubles me. There's this undercurrent arguement that I find troubling for the Gov of Kansas or any woman running for political office. This is the argument that Sen.Clinton is too qualified for the office of Vice President but Gov.Sebelius in not. But, hey no worries, they're both women aren't they; they must be interchangeable. The reasoning is that the office of VP is nothing more than a do nothing job. The thought is that any idiot can do it. It seems that this is the reason why it would be okay to nominate the unknown Gov. of Kansas. She wouldn't be doing anything anyway. Doesn't matter what her qualifications are because, again, any idiot can do it. It doesn't seem to be important what skills she brings to an administration. As long as she knows her "place" and  is not someone who'd out shine Sen. Obama? She is considered highly qualified. Oh and if she can bring in Ohio all the better.

(Sounds like how they used to arrange marriages for Old World kings and queens. Give me your dowry(votes) and then go back to exile in that cold castle(vp office) far, far away. You've served your function. Well unless the VP was required to birth an heir. There would be one obligatory night of sex and a beheading if you don't produce a future king. Lucky VP.)

What does this say about the VP selection process? What does that say about the Gov.? What does that say about Sen. Obama and his views on women in governent? What does that say about the future of women in general in the White House?

Doesn't do anything for either Sen.Clinton or Gov. Sebelius does it. This arguement doesn't do anything for Sen. Obama either. There is a danger of him looking petty and yes weak. Don't get me wrong folks. I'd love the idea of having more than one highly qualified woman to chose from. The more qualified women candidates the better the future for women in general. But saying that Sen. Clinton is too qualified and Gov. Sebelius doesn't have to be because the VP job is a do nothing job? To me, it looks less like picking a qualified candidate. Looks more like trying to get around picking the qualified person who is a woman to pick anyone else as long as they know "their place" and don't out shine the man.

There has to be a compelling reason to skip the highly qualified candidate other than, "Well I just don't like her." or "Well let's pick another woman, any woman, as long as she's not as strong as the guy. After all any idiot can do that job. Not a problem if she's less qualified."  You can't do that in the "real world" folks. It wouldn't pass Human Resources. I believe it is considered an unfair hiring practice. As a matter of fact, it would probably trigger a lawsuit. It has in my state. In that case, it was a matter of race not gender. My understanding though is that race and gender would have been equal in status. In this case it was an issue of passing over the qualified candidate because they did or did not want to hire someone because of their race NOT their qualifications. Insert gender for race? Looks like the same arguement to me.

I'd be interested in your opinion.

For me? I'm looking at the folks who ran in the presidential primary first. These people would be the first tier candidates. They have national support and actual dollars spent in the primary to promote their name and issues. Democrats then put confidence in these people by voting for them. The governor of Kansas doesn't have these qualifications. The Senator from New York does.

Regardless of their gender.

I kind of thought that was the point of equality.

Again I'd really love to have your opinion.

Regards from an old feminist RedNeck from the Deep South,

12 dogs

Oh and there's more after the bump.

Where are they? I'm already hearing and seeing GOP ads on energy prices; McStain is out there talking about his "new" economic plan;  if you watch the news shows for a longer than 10 minute stretch it's a good bet you'll see Carly Fiorina SOMEWHERE. Even though his ideas are trash, it really seems like McCain is "driving" the agenda. All I'm hearing from the Obama campaign is talk about moving the acceptance speech to Invesco field.

Right now the media is continually beating on this idea that Obama is flip flopping on issues. If he isn't out there attacking this through ads etc, then this brand will stick for the duration of the campaign. They have the money to flood the airwaves for the next 4 months - they better start spending it.  

Well, some people have been whining for more anti-McCain diaries where we can all agree and post 100 "McCain sucks" comments; here is my best shot as McCain unsurprisingly will be moving more rightward with a new economic plan that he plans to reveal tomorrow.  The headline on Drudge and politico is that "McCain promises to balance budget by 2013."  Sounds pretty good, eh?  Well, not until you read some of the details.

One way in which McCain plans to accomplish such a goal is to "overhaul entitlement programs, including Social Security...Medicare, Medicaid." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/070 8/11553.html

It appears that McCain believes the best way to win this election is to advocate for Grover Norquist/Club for Growth/Cato Institute ideas.  He's going after three of America's sacred cows.  There are other gems that are reportedly part of his new economic proposal and I'll leave them for you to read through that link.  

One final note: McCain was a Senator in the 90s and it's quite stunning that he forgets that Big Daddy was able to balance the budget because taxes were higher then on the upper-income and corporations and he did not place in two brutally expensive wars with no end in sight.

One of the many insults that get thrown at Obama supporters goes something like this,  "Is that more of this 'hope' and 'change' you Obamabots bought into?"

I keep seeing the words "hope" and "change" being thrown at Obama supporters as if they were spears. I see this in comment after comment. "What is this 'hope' you speak of? Where is the 'change' Obama talks about"?

Apparently, it is difficult for some people to understand these terms. Some don't want to understand. They simply want to use those terms as insults to imply that anyone who believes in them is naïve.

Well, I've got news for those nay-sayers. Hope and change are real. Both are greatly needed in this country after the last eight years under Bush/Cheney. Follow with me after the fold, while I try to explain exactly what these words mean to me.